When the Framers drafted the First Amendment, they did so in absolutist terms to allow no abridgment of the freedom of expression. The language was unprecedented and unqualified. While the courts have read various exceptions into that language, it was a recognition that censorship and speech criminalization have always been an impulse of those in power. Moreover, it can create an insatiable appetite where limiting speech in one area leads to demands in other areas. Democratic leaders have shown that tendency in recent years with an expanding anti-free speech agenda, but no one more embodies this danger than Illinois Gov. JB Pritzker.
Recently, a federal judge correctly ruled that a new Illinois law targeting pro-life centers is “painfully and blatantly a violation of the First Amendment.” The Deceptive Practices of Limited Services Pregnancy Centers Act would have allowed the state to crackdown on centers for what it considers “deceptive tactics” to influence pregnant women to have their babies. While celebrated by many on the left as a model for the nation, it would have gutted free speech protections and created a type of truth police.
The most concerning statement came from Pritzker himself. In a CNN interview, Pritzker defended the denial of free speech to pro-life advocates by citing the prosecution of former president Donald Trump. Some of us have objected to the second federal indictment of Trump as an attack on the First Amendment. Pritzker, however, appears to view it as a virtual invitation to do the same.
Pritzker declared that the law is “just like the case against President Trump. You have a right to free speech, but you don’t have a right to lie.” In his mind, it is that simple.
It is not, of course. Lies are generally protected under the Constitution.
In 2012, in the United States v. Alvarez decision, the Supreme Court held 6-3 that it is unconstitutional to criminalize lies in a case involving a politician who lied about military decorations.
Notably, the Court’s warning about criminalizing false or misleading speech fits the Illinois law and Pritzker to a tee. The Court said that such laws “would give government a broad censorial power unprecedented in this Court’s cases or in our constitutional tradition. The mere potential for the exercise of that power casts a chill, a chill the First Amendment cannot permit if free speech, thought, and discourse are to remain a foundation of our freedom.”
Pritzker, however, insists that the law is not just “constitutional . .. legal” but noble. He explained that they are just acting to prevent pro-lifers from saying “something that’s false.”
He added: “Remember what they’re doing, they’re putting their crisis pregnancy centers next door to abortion rights centers, and they’re directing people to go in their front door or telling them things that aren’t true often. And when that’s the case, they ought to be held liable.”
Clearly, there is no law against locating a pro-life center near an abortion center (or the inverse). Yet, Pritzker feels empowered by the prosecution of Trump over his speech: “it’s just like the case against President Trump. You have a right to free speech, but you don’t have a right to lie. You don’t have a right to use those lies to push people into situations in which they, frankly, are breaking the law or where they are unaware of what their full rights are. So, we need to make sure that people know what their rights are.”
Let that sink in a moment. Under Pritzker’s view of the First Amendment, the government can prosecute anyone who is lying and “push people into situations in which they. . . are unaware of what their full rights are.” The way to “make sure that people know what their rights are” is to prosecute lies.
In one interview, Pritzker made the case for the Trump legal team in showing how the demands for greater and greater speech curtailment can expand in real time. He is correct that, if Trump can be prosecuted for false political statements, other citizens can be prosecuted for lying on other subjects. Much of political speech concerns the rights shared by all of us. Whether it is a comment on elections, police brutality or gender identity, it can be treated as contributing to doubts of people “of what their full rights are.” The government would then become a truth police, protecting citizens from dangerous or disinforming opinions.
In the federal case, Smith acknowledges that the Constitution protects false statements (which Pritzker does not in the interview). However, he simply argues that Trump knew they were false because many people told him so. The fact that other lawyers argued that he could challenge the election is simply dismissed as disinformation. While Smith cites efforts to challenge the certification of the election and submit an alternative slate of electors, it all comes down to whether Trump believed that he might have had a case or could have changed the result of the election. Millions continue to hold that view. I do not. However, are they all spreading a criminal lie by voicing it or confusing others on their rights?
Justice Louis Brandeis once warned that “The greatest dangers to liberty lurk in insidious encroachment by men of zeal, well-meaning but without understanding.” Gov. JB Pritzker is one of those men and he is now offering to police the truth if only you will allow him.
What was de facto President Obama’s cut from the Biden Crime Family bribery and corruption scheme?
What was de facto President Obama’s cut from the multiple millions of dollars paid to the Biden Crime Family by China?
I know that Obama has enriched himself through the fool Joe Biden; I just hope that the Judiciary Committee investigations find out how — and where that money is stashed.
Crisis pregnancy centers cut into the profits of abortion providers. Behind this unconstitutional law is a huge pot of money.
Face it. Trump is going to prison.
Are all Georgia state prisons air conditioned? Asking for a friend.
It’s ironic that the free press acts in such an Orwellian way, functioning not unlike the press of the Soviet Union to shame and humiliate political enemies.
MSM = Izvestia and Pravda
I’ve worked with crisis pregnancy centers. What my esteemed governor Herr Goebbels means by “lies” is “information that I don’t like and that runs counter to my pro-abortion ideology.” Not only is the law unconstitutional on its face, but if a case were ever tried under it, the prosecution (persecution?) would get laughed out of court.
It is time for “JUDICIAL OVERREACH” by the Supreme Court.
The Supreme Court must immediately intervene and exercise its power of Judicial Review to rein in the Obama administration’s rogue communist juggernaut of “lawfare” in order to save the nation.
The actors in this tragedy are President Obama, President Obama’s puppet and demented crook, Joe Biden, the contemptible Merrick Garland, and the chintzy prosecutor, Jack Smith (Dirty deeds, done dirt cheap).
President Obama intends to “fundamentally transform” America into a smoldering ash heap and conclude the subsumption of America by communist China.
Justices swore an oath to support the Constitution, which is now down to its final threads and its last breath.
______________________________________________________________________________________
“We are five days away from fundamentally transforming the United States of America.”
– Barack Obama
______________
“We will stop him.”
– Peter Strzok to FBI paramour Lisa Page
___________________________________
“[Obama] wants to know everything we’re doing.”
– Lisa Page to FBI paramour Peter Strzok
Not free speech:
https://www.huffpost.com/entry/teacher-kill-list-sentenced_n_64d1d9e4e4b0b9c9f3e2f575
Neither is crying “Fire!”
“Anyone who says ‘you can’t shout fire! in a crowded theatre’ is showing that they don’t know much about the principles of free speech, or free speech law—or history,” Foundation for Individual Rights and Expression President Greg Lukianoff wrote in 2021. “This old canard, a favorite reference of censorship apologists, needs to be retired. It’s repeatedly and inappropriately used to justify speech limitations.”
And your point is? Offering women alternatives to abortion is the same as a kill list? Really?
Jonathan: The case against Gov. Pritzker you also turn into a discussion of the case against DJT involving the conspiracy to overturn the results of the 2020 election. You acknowledge that DJT could have no good faith belief the election was “stolen”. You admit the 2020 election was free and fair. But in addition to your claim this case is all about DJY’s right to “free speech” you try to argue the defense of “advice of counsel”–that DJT was entitled to rely on the advice he was getting from Rudy Giuliani and John Eastman. Eastman is probably going to lose his law license in California over that “legal” advice–as will Giuliani. Both are also included in Jack Smith’s indictment as Co-Conspirators. They were the ones pushing the illegal fake elector conspiracy. It’s not “disinformation” to say DJT should have listened to his own WH Counsel, his own AG Bill Barr and his political campaign advisors who told him he lost the election and the scheme to appoint fake Trump electors was “crazy”. That was not “disinformation”.
Which leads to a discussion of whether the upcoming trials of DJT should be televised. State courts permit cameras in the courtroom but Federal courts generally do not. But John Lauro, DJT’s principal lawyer in the send indictment, has been making the media tour saying the trials should be televised. Dems in the House, led by Adam Schiff, think so too. Schiff just wrote a letter to the Judicial Conference Schiff said: “Given the historical nature of the charges brought forth in these cases, it is hard to imagine a more powerful circumstance for televised proceedings. If the public is to freely accept the outcome, it will be vitally important for it to witness, as directly as possible, how the trials are conducted, the strength of the evidence adduced and the credibility of witnesses”.
Now I know. If DJT is convicted in any of the cases the MAGA followers on this blog will never accept the jury verdicts. But that said, I am conducting another poll. How many on this blog think the DJT trials should be televised? There are pros and cons on both sides. So if you have an opinion please explain.
Televise!
Justice must be seen to be done.
Courts are open to the public, so justice can be seen by anyone who stops in, including the media. But television leads to people grandstanding, which would only detract from the quality of justice and the gravity of the proceedings.
That may be okay for press conferences and the like, for which a circus atmosphere may be tolerable to some degree, but it’s not for the decorum of a courtroom. There’s a reason most court proceedings are not televised.
Which Federal trials in the past have been televised.
Not sure I care. But televising the White House Daily Press Briefing, and congressional hearings have seriously lessened the content of both. Being replaced by concentrated narrative setting at the expense of fact delivered.
Dennis “Schiff just wrote a letter to the Judicial Conference Schiff said: “Given the historical nature of the charges brought forth in these cases, it is hard to imagine a more powerful circumstance for televised proceedings. If the public is to freely accept the outcome, it will be vitally important for it to witness, as directly as possible, how the trials are conducted, the strength of the evidence adduced and the credibility of witnesses”. How man times did Schiff (Naddler, et als) stand on the floor of the house and wave docs yelling he had the evidence? We know how that turned out. Well Schiff, among others, will account for those lies in the near future. Perhaps you can get a MSM press pass to see the GITMO Tribunals?
Yep, Televise and then can see legal team of DT’s which could also include Alan Dershowitz and Prof Turley. By the way it is amazing to see a very liberal Dem Prof Dershowtz, come out and express unbiased opinions. You know the Prof said there was no smoking gun there. I will take his opinion over yours assiduously 24/7. Under Joe Biden the country is going dystopian, and your postings, you grinding out DT hate. You Dems’ areses will be really chapped as DT will be elected in 2024.
The bad part about the US population now is more than 50% of voters will just vote for the Free stuff person and that would be Dem. The free stuff has produced an approaching $33 Trillion deficit and that will become economically compelling.
Another excellent piece! One has to wonder where this all will end.
If Fauci knew that the Covid vaccine would not prevent people from getting Covid shouldn’t he be indicted for lying to the Amarican people? If Joe Biden knew that when he said that if you get the vaccine you will not get Covid was a lie why shouldn’t he be indicted? In his defense he probably didn’t know because there’s not really much that he does know. Joe believed his advisers and Trump believed his advisers. They both sincerely believed what they were being told but only one man is being indicted for a crime. However, Joe Biden is the one man who encouraged his Attorney General to more forcefully go after his political rival. Alan Dershowitz has said that one more banana has been added to the banana republic tree. You can rest assured that if Joe Biden is reelected a full bunch of bananas will be added to the banana republic tree. Pritzker will be the strong boss of the new banana pickers otherwise known as you and me.
TiT,
OT, but somewhat related.
Nacy Pelosi said in a recent interview with New York magazine said, “It cannot happen, or we will not be the United States of America.” when asked about another Trump presidency.
It could be argued we are not America but a banana republic that the Biden admin has turned us into.
But what if Trump were to win the election in a fair election to include the popular vote? Is that not what America is? Or is it only when Democrats win?
Upstate – Nancy is another opposite world denizen.
OldManFromKS,
That is something I would like to see people like Nancy expand on: How exactly will America cease to exist if Trump is re-elected?
We saw so many Democrats crying the same when the results came in, in 2016.
But when we see the actions taken by Trump, what exactly did we see?
You made a list of things that happened during the Trump admin, like a secure border, low gas prices and low inflation prior to COVID.
Meanwhile Democrats made outlandish comparisons to Hitler and continue to do so without evidence.
Back when NPR and like programing was still somewhat sane, Tom Ashbrook of WBUR Boston radio show On Point, interviewed former Sec of Defense under the Obama admin Ashton Carter. During the interview what stood out to me was Carter said that while MSM focused on what Trump said or tweeted, the world leaders were watching what he DID.
When taken from that perspective and to this day holds true.
. . . the world leaders were watching what he DID.
That’s what I care about – what did he do, versus what does the current regime do? I dislike Trump personality, but that I’m not so immature as to think that is what matters most. Notably, during the four years he was in office the Left was unable to validly criticize the progress he made on so many fronts, so instead they made up hoaxes about him and harped on his personality.
Here are some of his accomplishments that speak for themselves; feel free to add to the list: (1) energy independence, (2) energy exporting, (3) affordable gas and groceries, (4) low inflation, (5) historically low unemployment especially for minorities, (6) highest real wages in half a century, (7) high property values, (8) high stock market, (9) violent crime under control, (10) border under control, Title 42 and remain-in-Mexico enforced, thus reducing human sex trafficking and deadly fentanyl infiltration into U.S. communities, as well as drowning and heat deaths of the migrants themselves (mostly children), (11) no defunding of police, (12) no war in Europe, (13) criminal justice reform, (14) trade deals benefiting America, (15) reduction of regulatory burden on small businesses, (16) no being beholden to globalist elites (e.g., Davos crowd) who despise free markets and America’s economic system, (17) no political weaponization of the Justice Department or FBI, (18) no labeling of concerned parents as domestic terrorists, (19) no wokeness in military, (20) no catastrophic Afghanistan withdrawal weakening America’s position in the world, (21) China and Russia don’t dare act aggressively, (22) no being in thrall to the green cultism and waging war on our best energy sources thereby depressing civilization into a state of poverty (23) no slandering half of the American electorate as alleged fascists (odd that fascist now means someone who wants to *reduce* size and power of the central government and to *oppose* state-corporate joint action to suppress dissent — the exact opposite of what fascism previously meant), (24) no double-standard whereby illegal aliens can come in permanently while not vaxed, but tennis stars can’t come in temporarily if not vaxed, (25) no new wars anywhere involving us.
OldManFromKS,
THAT! Right there!
Well said.
(26) Massive, across-the board tax cuts.
(27) Rejuvenated pride in America
(28) Didn’t appease his enemies
(29) A first lady who looked and acted like a lady
(30) Children who were professional and acted like adults
As much as I admire Jonathan’s intellect and integrity, I simply believe he is wrong in the way he characterizes the Trump indictment, ignoring that the speech was tied to actions (phony electors, e.g.)
Asking congress to recognize others as electors is protected speech.
I am not going to get into the go to” what about Trump”. I am not a Trump fan. But as a resident of Highland Park Il. I can attest to the fact that Prickster is an ASS**LE. The SafeT Act eliminating cash bail is ridiculous. He just signed a bill that lets non- citizens be law enforcement officers. If not for the Hyatt fortune, he literally could not be elected dog catcher. As soon as I can get my mother-in law to come with my wife and myself I will be getting out of Hellinois.
It’s important where you go to. “Hellinois” is carbon-copied in many blue states. Got to a red state if you value either your life or peace.
OldManFromKS,
That is an interesting question: Where to go? What would be the criteria and not just as simple as politics. I can tell you when I returned from Afghanistan, one of my top priorities was fresh water.
Upstate – the politics matters for purposes of the economy and freedom, both of which are valuable to one’s quality of life for obvious reasons. But I agree about water. If I had to make a list, I’d look for abundant water and farmland, relatively mild summers and winters, and being away from natural disasters. One could do worse than some of the great lake states other than the northern ones.
OldManFromKS,
Valid points.
I would argue that the sometimes brutal winters I have, it keeps out the riff raff. I consider temps in the mid teens and 20s to be . . . mild.
Natural disasters, pick one. Every region has theirs. From Tornado Alley, to Hurricane Alley, Earthquakes, Droughts to Mega-droughts. to Flooding, there is no region exempt of some kind of natural disaster.
I have lived in more than a few.
What I can tell you is this, oil might power the world but water is life.
Upstate – a few natural disasters happen in such states (e.g., Hurricane Agnes in 1972), but they are few and far between.
That is easy. FLORIDA!!
Emotional Italian,
Sorry old boy but I have friends and family down that way.
Hurricanes and mosquitoes the size of small birds and dont forget that 12 to 18 foot alligators and 18flt long snakes that can eat small children, that is a whole lot of NO!
I take it you don’t like the weather.
Florida is a great state, but for those that can’t deal with a lack of season change they find a lot of things to blame.
Upstate NY is nice as well, but the weather sucks.
I guess it is each to his own. Enjoy.
S. Meyer,
Oh, I have no problem with weather.
Courtesy of the USMC, I have been to some of the hottest places in not only the US but the world.
I can say this, I can always add another layer in winter but I can only get so naked in the deep south in summer.
Keep in mind, these were field deployed conditions where there was no AC within a few hundred miles. I do not enjoy listening to myself sweat.
The Biden admin seems to be content with driving all of us into WWIII. That could lead to a EMP, cyber attack or even physical attack on our electrical grid. Tell me, how great would it be in the deep south if the grid was down and there is no AC or municipal provided water?
I see you will be moving to Longboat Key between Sarasota and Tampa. Great area to live in especially if you are on the water. A/C exists so one need not stay hot too long. Prices have shot up all over south Florida so a home might be very expensive. I know the other coast and real estate prices are through the roof.
We have known about EMP since WW2 era. We did very little to protect ourselves. About ten years ago Michele Bachman told me to harden the grid (only the grid) would cost $1Billion, but Congress refused to do anything. I actually became slightly involved in that but no one seemed to care.
We are always caught unaware, but in the past we were tough. Today, Im not sure we are willing to fight for our freedom.
Upstate, no small children. Have family in Sarasota since 1965. That is where I will be going .Longboat Key to be specific. No hurricanes have hit my family’s residence. I will trade off mosquitos and the occasional alligator for no cash bail, rampant crime, an idiot pig governor and in the case of Chicago, idiots who elected a worse mayor than Lightfoot.
Life is about plusses and minuses. Hellinois is a big minus.
Pritzker’s statement is just a huge vanity statement to his totalitarian Democratic friends in Washington. Basically he is saying, if you give me enough money that will allow me to keep my job I will say or do anything you want and wag my tail in the process. Why is it such a big deal if he wants to throw the bill of rights under the Panzer (Ptitzker) treads.
I wonder whether the indictment that Trump knowingly lied about the election being rigged and that he actually would have won if all illegitimate votes were to be cast out, opens the door for him to show in court that he was telling the truth and present evidence of all the election malfeasance. If he has enough material, the basis for the indictment would fall apart. Like to have JT’s opinion on that.
Let him try. Trump has no evidence of that. He hired two different research groups (Berkeley Research Group and Simpatico Software Systems) to investigate election fraud, and neither one found sufficient fraud to effect the outcome. It was looked into in multiple court cases, as well as in the ruling suspending Giuliani’s law license. There were audits in more than one state. No outcome-determinative fraud was found.
There are at least 4 states that ran the election violating the laws passed by the legislature and signed into law. Lot’s of those votes should have been rejected by those running the elections.
Exactly, iowan2. Thank you for simplifying what millions still believe cost the country an honest election with confident results.
IOwan2: What four states are you referring to that passed “election violating laws”? DJT filed over 60 lawsuits in various states, that didn’t challenge the election laws themselves, but falsely claimed there was “massive election fraud”. He lost all of them on the merits. What votes do think should have been “rejected”. Maybe the votes for Biden?
” 60 lawsuits in various states, that didn’t challenge the election laws themselves, but falsely claimed there was “massive election fraud”. He lost all of them on the merits. “
Dennis, you are either a liar or stupid. as of July 2022, 30 cases were decided on the merits. Trump/GOP prevailed on 22 of them. You have read this before but almost everything you say is a lie so what can we expect.
If you wish we can go over all the cases one by one, but you don’t want to know the facts. You want to throw dirt, lie and be stupid.
DoubleDutch – you may be onto something there. Check out Bannon’s remarks here:
Fedsurrection!
Jack— Smith:
A Bridge Too Far!
“Judas Pence took his thirty pieces of silver…Mike Pence had full authority…Mike Pence is one of the most gutless cowards I’ve ever met in my entire life…he will rue the day he lied…”
– Steve Bannon
If the First Amendment goes, the entirety of the Bill of Rights follows soon thereafter. It’s the aglet holding the whole thing together.
“…it all comes down to whether Trump believed that he might have had a case or could have changed the result of the election. Millions continue to hold that view. I do not.”
I have to wonder why the professor continues to hold the perspective the 2020 election was conducted on the up-n-up in every state, when “Millions”, perhaps a majority of American voters, still believe there were enough irregularities that could have been, should have been investigated/litigated before Congress convened on January 6th. When the “winning Party” doesn’t want any investigation and proactively blocks *every* attempt to definitely confirm their own winning results, it makes “Because we say so”, a less and less convincing argument.
It seems Professor Turley agrees with ‘no standing’ is a good enough reason to have never revisited those irregularities, then and now, to uncover possible violations of their own election laws by some states where, for days and weeks, it was ‘too close’ to call, in a national election.
With recent reversals in what was supposedly ‘settled law’ for decades or longer, perhaps precedent itself should be reviewed to see if it always applies, “Because we say so”.
The prog/left should be careful since 99%+ of their speech is a lie. They are criminalizing themselves – they are truly unable to comprehend bothe irony and hypocrisy.
What will happen if the Republicans sweep the elections and take full control of the federal government? Will a new pay-back time DOJ go after every liar, like the notorious Schiff? Will be put all the Democrats in jail for denying election results and create a new statute of limitations for them like Trump’s NY prosecution? Have they not learned the Harry Reed lesson?
We go through these First Amendment spasms periodically, nearly always generated by fear either created or stoked by politicians. Who can forget the McCarthy era when fear of communism justified wide-spread blacklisting (the 1950s version of cancel culture). Even President Eisenhower, the commander of forces in the D-Day invasion, was fearful of taking McCarthy on. In the 1970s, another spasm gripped the country, and although not as pernicious, it focused on the too free speech of those who opposed the Vietnam war such as Jane Fonda. The First Amendment is an obstacle to totalitarianism and whenever those who gain power are able to do so, it is at or near the top of their hit list. Governor Pritzker is but one in a long line of politicians (today mostly Democrats) more than willing to sell out the values of this country for their own, short-term gain. The difference this time around is that the combined forces of the legacy media and tech giants in social media support the politicians who clamor for censorship of any opposing views. That is significant difference.
Honestlawyermostly,
Thank you for that interesting perspective.
To me, it is how much is on the line that makes this go around that much more perilous.
When woke leftists show their drive towards censorship, totalitarianism, believe them.
“[Y]ou don’t have a right to lie.” (Pritzker)
According to the Left, government is now the arbiter of the truth.
Didn’t we fight a war against “every form of tyranny over the mind of man”? (Jefferson)