The government often waits until Friday night when it wants to file something controversial in seeking to reduce media coverage and public attention. Special Counsel Jack Smith followed this practice this week in quietly filing a motion to gag former president Donald Trump in his Florida case. Smith took the action after Trump suggested that the warrant used on his Palm Beach home included a provision allowing the use of lethal force. While the provision is standard in such warrants, Trump has portrayed the inclusion of the boilerplate language as a threat to his life and the lives of his family. Nevertheless, I believe that the gag order, like Smith’s past demands, is over-broad and a violation of the free speech rights of the former president.
I have been a long critic of gag orders as inimical to free speech. I have specifically opposed past demands by Smith (and prior orders) as overbroad and unconstitutional.
There has been much discussion of the gag order imposed on Trump by Justice Juan Merchan, who is controlling not only the travel but the speech of the leading presidential candidate from his small Manhattan courtroom. He has gagged Trump from speaking about witnesses like Michael Cohen, who has attacked him as both a candidate and as a defendant in public. The New York courts have upheld the order.
What is most troubling is the bar on Trump discussing such figures as Matthew Colangelo. Colangelo was third in command of the Justice Department and gave up that plum position to lead the case against Trump. Colangelo was also paid by the Democratic National Committee for “political consulting.”
So a former high-ranking official in the Biden Justice Department and a past consultant to the DNC is leading the prosecution. With the weaponization of the criminal justice system by the Democrats as a central issue in this campaign, the gag order is curtailing the ability of Trump to address one of the most controversial figures in the effort.
Now Smith would like to radically expand the gag with a new order out of Florida. Notably, Smith has thus far failed in his unrelenting efforts to get one of his two cases to a jury before the election. Thus, this order would gag Trump through the election even though the cases could be effectively scuttled if he were elected.
Trump has used the language to galvanize his supporters, claiming that FBI “WAS AUTHORIZED TO SHOOT ME” and that the government was “just itching to do the unthinkable.” He added that the FBI was “locked & loaded ready to take me out & put my family in danger.” Figures like Rep. Marjorie Taylor Greene (R-Ga.) have piled on with claims that the DOJ and FBI were “planning to assassinate Pres. Trump and gave the green light.”
My strong disagreement with Trump on this lethal force provision does not alter my opposition to the gag effort. Many of us have publicly disagreed with these claims and expressed concern that they are fueling rage. Trump’s opponents and the media have made the statements a focus of coverage for days. That is how free speech works. Citizens can reach their own conclusions on the merits in a free and open debate.
Once again, the solution to bad speech is good speech, not censorship or gagging of those with opposing views.
In his Friday filing, Smith is not seeking to protect specific witnesses but the entire government from criticism. He objects that the statements create “a grossly misleading impression about the intentions and conduct of federal law enforcement.” That could very well be true, but Smith is seeking to control what a presidential candidate can say about the government, a chilling measure for any political system. It is particularly concerning when directed at an anti-establishment candidate.
The concerns over the premise of such an order are only exceeded by concerns over its scope. Smith does not seek to define that scope, but rather says that we will know a violation when we see it:
“Whether a particular statement meets that test “must be determined by reference to the statement’s full context. But that condition would clearly prohibit further statements deceptively claiming that the agents involved in the execution of the search warrant were engaged in an effort to kill him, his family, or Secret Service agents.”
The vagueness of the order would create a chilling effect on a political candidate who would have to self-censor to avoid possible contempt sanctions, including jail. For the United States government to seek such a limit on political speech should be widely condemned in the media and politics.
Under this order, the Justice Department would effectively limit what criticism could be voiced of its actions and intentions by the leading candidate for the presidency. For a candidate who has been subject to false allegations, including in the federal Russian collusion investigation, the gag would impose an unprecedented and unconstitutional limit on political speech.
It is another example of Smith’s lack of any sense of restraint in his pursuit of Trump. He has repeatedly shown a pronounced disregard for both due process and free speech in his prosecution of these cases.
Indeed, while the inclusion of the boilerplate language has been exaggerated and distorted, the real threat from the government is evident in the motion filed in response to that criticism. Smith has again fulfilled the narrative with another motion that speaks to his animosity and sense of impunity in the prosecution of Donald Trump.
The Smith motion should be denied and Attorney General Merrick Garland should exercise a modicum of responsibility in his supervision of the case. While Smith is being given broad discretion, that independence should not extend to contradicting core departmental policies on interfering with elections or curtailing free speech.
JUNE 14, 2017
Five people shot, including Republican congressman, at baseball practice
On June 14, 2017, a gunman walked onto a baseball field at Eugene Simpson Park in Alexandria, Virginia, opening fire on politicians and wounding House GOP Whip Steve Scalise of Louisiana and four others.
The representatives had been practicing for the annual Congressional Baseball Game for Charity. James Hodgkinson, a 66-year-old man, asked a passing congressman—South Carolina’s Jeff Duncan—whether Republicans or Democrats were on the field practicing. Once he received confirmation that the Republican representatives were the ones playing ball, Hodgkinson fired off 60 rounds into the unsuspecting elected officials.
A call to police went out shortly after 7 as the political officials scrambled for cover. When officers arrived on the scene, they exchanged fire with the suspect, running towards him while dodging the spray of bullets, and eventually killing him. Unfortunately, Hodgkinson’s damage had already been done.
Subsequent investigations revealed Hodgkinson as a man with a clear hatred for Republicans. He had arrived at the field in a white van—he was living out of it—with his legally purchased rifle and a list of six conservative members of congress, presumably his targets.
– https://www.history.com/this-day-in-history/james-hodgkinson-shooting-republicans-baseball-game
From 2 Years Ago:
Armed Trumper Dies Trying To Storm FBI Field Office
A gunman who died in a shootout after trying to get inside the FBI’s Cincinnati office apparently went on social media and called for federal agents to be killed “on sight” following the search at former President Donald Trump’s home, a law enforcement official said.
Federal investigators are examining social media accounts they believe are tied to the gunman, 42-year-old Ricky Shiffer, according to the official, who was not authorized to discuss the investigation publicly and spoke to The Associated Press on condition of anonymity.
At least one of the messages on Trump’s Truth Social media platform appeared to have been posted after Shiffer tried to breach the FBI office. It read: “If you don’t hear from me, it is true I tried attacking the F.B.I.”
https://apnews.com/article/fbi-office-shooting-suspect-killed-eb85e9faa93612fc54fb15639075d0fe
………………………………..
In today’s column Professor Turley tells us that Donald Trump has every right to stoke hatred towards the FBI with baseless lies of assination plots. And if some deranged follower resorts to violence, that’s just too bad.
Anonymous – you don’t notice that your comment contradicts itself. In conculsion, you say: “Turley tells us that Donald Trump has every right to stoke hatred towards the FBI with baseless lies of assination [sic] plots.” But the example you provide in paragraph 3 says: “A gunman who died in a shootout . . went on social media and
called for federal agents to be killed ‘on sight’ following the search at former President Donald Trump’s home[.]” So the only example of Trump-inspired violence you cite had a motivating cause from an action – the FBI raid on Mar-A-Lago – not any words of Trump. The only real point of your comment is that “violence” of the FBI and government generally will breed violence in ordinary Americans.
“And if some deranged follower resorts to violence, that’s just too bad.”
Trump’s goal is violence.
And if it doesn’t trigger violence Trump will try harder.
Yep, you should get in their face, you should go to their houses .. laughable, what do you think we have a one week memory? BLM and Antifa burned federal buildings and killed people cost billions and you think Trump incites violence?!
You left Lincoln out.
Do communists care about the law, constitution, bill of rights or freedom? Seems obvious they have weaponized the law just like 1924…
A court is an object of law.
A court is not above the law.
A gag order is unconstitutional.
A gag order denies the 1st Amendment rights of the subject.
A gag order illicitly abridges the freedom of speech of an innocent citizen who has not been convicted and is not under penalty or the power of the law.
A gag order is an unconstitutional ad hoc amendment of the Constitution outside of the amendment process prescribed in the Constitution.
_______________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
1st Amendment
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.
Jonathan,
Why are you incapable of pointing out enormous white elephants in the room when it comes to discussing everything-Donald Trump?
The ‘lethal force’ allowance in search warrants is boilerplate language however, did you find the same ‘boilerplate’ language in the current White House occupant’s ‘raid orders’? The answer is a resounding no. And you will not find such ‘boilerplate’ language in any other ‘search warrant’ involving incumbent or former POTUS’.
STOP obfuscating what is clearly happening in front of almost everybody in the world; the political persecution of the current White House occupant’s main political rival. Lavrenty Beria’s ghost is alive and well in the United States of America and you darn well know this, Jon.
@anonymous,
Because your ignorance is preventing you from understanding the issue. He’s not obfuscating.
Boilerplate language means yes, you do find it in ALL warrants, including the ones you mention.
you mean the guy who looks like Satan?
‘Turley’…, you say there haven’t been specific death threats as a result of trump uncontrably blowing his cookies yet again re the FBI…, but how do you know that? Other than the fact that you’d have no way to know it, this much is undoubtedly true — trump’s claim garnered enough threats to agents in general that it’s become, at the very least, problematic.
As someone who has liberally censored this blog comment section previously you’re well aware of free speech only extending toward criticizing the government, not so much toward private speech. Hoping that the FBI, writ large counts as the government, no doubt.
Fact is though, trump is just as much of an a hole as he ever was, worse probably, and he doesn’t just need a gag order, he needs to be literally gagged.
Why aren’t Comey, McCabe, Stzork and Paige in prison yet? Why wasn’t Hillary indicted on any number of readily apparent crimes, why wasn’t Bill Clinton arrested for raping Juanita Brodderick, why wasn’t Joe Biden indicted and charged for stealing classified documents and mishandling them, why did the DOJ slow walk Hunter Biden’s tax evasion? Why? I don’t believe Trump has to incite people to do anything, it’s all right there in our faces every single day.
“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
___________________________________
“I want to believe the path you threw out for consideration in Andy’s office — that there’s no way he gets elected — but I’m afraid we can’t take that risk It’s like an insurance policy in the unlikely event you die before 40.”
– Peter Strzok to FBI parmour Lisa Page
_________________________________
“People on the 7th floor to include Director are fired up about this [Trump] server.”
– Bill Priestap
It’s coming, like a bulldozer! There’s going to be some political carnage long past due!
Caterpillar D11T!
Garland exercise responsibility? Silly Rabbit!
in a situation involving a person under Secret Service protection, such as the President, Vice President, or other protected individuals, the Secret Service would have primary authority over that of the FBI.
Jonathan: As an attorney and law professor you know gag orders are used in criminal cases to prevent a defendant from interfering with the fair and orderly administration of justice– by attacking judges, witnesses, family members and law enforcement. So why is it that when it comes to DJT you apply a different standard? When it comes to DJT suddenly gag orders are “overbroad and unconstitutional” and “interfering with elections or curtailing free speech”.
Why are gag orders particularly necessary when it comes to DJT? Because when he attacks judges, their family members, law enforcement and the entire judicial system it inevitably leads to violence. We saw that on J 6 when DJT’s followers attacked the Capitol. It also happened when DJT attacked Judge Chutkan. A Texas woman and DJT supporter made a death threat against the Judge. She is now being prosecuted.
In the present Mar-a-Lago docs case Judge Cannon released redacted docs connected with the FBI search of DJT’s residence. Included in the docs were the protocols for the FBI search. It was the standard boilerplate language in every search warrant that the FBI is authorized to use deadly force if attacked. But DJT immediately seized on that language to falsely claim the FBI/DOJ plotted to murder DJT, his family and the SS agents.
Anyone familiar with the search of MAL knows DJT’s claim is a lie. The search was well coordinated with DJT’s lawyers, the SS and other staff to ensure DJT would not be present during the search. How could the FBI assassinate DJT if he was not there? While the FBI was armed they didn’t point guns at anyone at MAL. The search was conducted in a peaceful and orderly fashion.
Jack Smith’s emergency appeal was prompted by DJT’s lies about the search–by his unwarranted attacks on law enforcement. And you intentionally misstate what Smith is asking of Judge Cannon. Smith is not trying to protect the “entire government from criticism”. On page one of Smith’s “Motion for Modification of Conditions of Release” it states clearly: “The Government moves to modify defendant Donald J. Trump’s conditions of release, to make it clear that he may not make statements that pose a significant, imminent, and foreseeable danger to law enforcement agents participating in the investigation and prosecution of this case”. On page seven of the Motion Smith states: “Trump, however, has grossly distorted the standards [ for the use of deadly force] by mischaracterizing them as a plan to kill him, his family and US Secret Service Agents. These deceptions and inflammatory assertions irresponsibly put a target on the backs of the FBI agents involved in this case, as Trump well knows.”
In his Motion, Smith also addresses DJT’s First Amendment rights. The Motion does not prevent DJT from exercising those rights. But like any criminal defendant DJT’s “free speech” rights are curtailed because pre-trial release “commonly includes measures that burden criminal defendants’ ability to act, associate, and speak…”. For example, a criminal defendant cannot have any contact with potential witnesses. That’s a necessary and limited restriction on “free speech”. The Motion does not prevent DJT from attacking the “entire government” or exercising his other First Amendment rights.
The interesting Q is what will Judge Cannon do with Smith’s emergency motion? If she denies it Smith may use the opportunity to file an emergency appeal with the 11th Circuit that has slapped Cannon down before. Smith might even ask that Cannon be removed from the case because she has shown a clear bias in favor of DJT. Cannon will take her good time in ruling on the Motion. She may take another month to rule–another indication Cannon is trying to slow walk her case so it can’t be tried before the election. And here is where the law of “unintended consequences” comes in. By telling lies about the search of MAL, DJT may be unintentionally be giving Smith the one opportunity he needs to get Cannon removed from the case!
Why are gag orders particularly necessary when it comes to DJT? Because when he attacks judges, their family members, law enforcement and the entire judicial system it inevitably leads to violence
That means we can silence all the Dems attacking SCOTUS
Dennis – the authorization to use deadly force should never be boilerplate. We saw in Waco and Ruby Ridge how federal agents eagerly and easily resorted to deadly force unnecessarily.
As to “attacks” on witnesses, etc., I would remind you that Trump has not called for violence against as anyone. Criticism is not “an attack.”
Edwardmahl said: “We saw in Waco and Ruby Ridge how federal agents eagerly and easily resorted to deadly force unnecessarily.”
You’re wasting your time. I’d bet you good money that the a$$hat troll that you responded to thinks that those incidents were great victories for justice.
Or if he — Dennis — even exists.
If he does, he takes being an ignoramus very seriously.
Edwardmahl: Why wouldn’t the authorization to use deadly force be “boilerplate” in every search warrant. It’s a constant reminder to FBI agents to use deadly force ONLY and if you are fired upon. Why wouldn’t you want that admonition in EVERY search warrant? Your claim makes no sense.
As to your claim that “Trump has not called for violence against as [sic] anyone”. What about J.6? DJT told the Proud Boys, the Oathkeepers and his other followers that J.6 would be “wild” and called on them to “fight or you won’t have a country anymore”. That was a green light for his supporters to attack the Capitol police–causing deaths and severe injuries to those defending the Capitol. That call for violence by the President has never been seen in our history. Now DJT is a criminal defendant for his calls for violence.
In the present context, the trial in Manhattan, DJT has been very careful not to directly call for acts of violence against prosecutors, the judge, family members and the witnesses. He learned a lesson from J6. Don’t risk being a criminal defendant in another trial. So now DJT resorts to VERBAL attacks on those arrayed against him.
Now you won’t see another head of a criminal syndicate directly and publicly call for violence against prosecutors, a judge or witnesses. They know better. So what does a Mafia Don do? He whispers into the ear of one of his capos: “Take care of that meddlesome judge who hates me”. That’s all it takes. Do you think DJT would shed a tear if one of his MAGA supporters were to assassinate Judge Merchan? That’s why all the jurors in the Manhattan trial are “Anonymous” and the judge and prosecutors and witnesses are under constant protection by law enforcement. They know the capabilities of DJT to repeat what he did on J6!
Dennis: thanks for another wonderful post. Turley is more concerned about Trump being forbidden from stirring up potential violence than the fact that he blatantly lied about Biden ordering a hit on him. Think about that you Trumpsters: even Turley admitted that Trump lied about Biden ordering a hit on him and his family.
Smith’s motion made clear that it was Trump ‘s LIE about Biden ordering an assassination that was the impetus for seeking the gag order. And, there have been death threats.
NUTCHACHACHA, please cite a legal basis for the issuance of a gag order and denying the 1st Amendment freedom of speech. The only authority for amending the Constitution is in Article 5:
Article 5
The Congress, whenever two thirds of both Houses shall deem it necessary, shall propose Amendments to this Constitution, or, on the Application of the Legislatures of two thirds of the several States, shall call a Convention for proposing Amendments, which, in either Case, shall be valid to all Intents and Purposes, as Part of this Constitution, when ratified by the Legislatures of three fourths of the several States, or by Conventions in three fourths thereof, as the one or the other Mode of Ratification may be proposed by the Congress; Provided that no Amendment which may be made prior to the Year One thousand eight hundred and eight shall in any Manner affect the first and fourth Clauses in the Ninth Section of the first Article; and that no State, without its Consent, shall be deprived of its equal Suffrage in the Senate.
“So why is it that when it comes to DJT you apply a different standard?”
– Dennista
____________
It’s not “a different standard,” you ——- idiot, it’s the first amendment to the Constitution of the United States of America.
The court is not above the law, the fundamental law, and the court is compelled to support the Constitution and generate a “workaround.”
_____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
1st Amendment
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.
Here’s the standard Turley is talking about. It’s on page 10.
https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.flsd.648652/gov.uscourts.flsd.648652.566.3.pdf
Everything Trump does to the Democrats, they routinely employed to smear their opponents for decades. That’s not news; it’s not even debatable.
The real reason Democrat leaders hate Trump is because he uses their own tactics against them, and it works. By using inflammatory rhetoric and name calling, he’s managed to strip much of the working-class base from the Democrat Party, and it’s only getting worse for the Democrats.
So of course The Party wants to silence Trump. Embarrassing the party of the little man while the party’s grandees are canoodling with oligarchs, that’s the real crime. Suddenly, populism is a “threat to democracy.” Whodda thunk it??
Bankrupting and gagging Trump is the Democrat tactic du jour, and yes, he’s just the trial run. If they can murder him in prison, what’s to stop them from scaling up this new business model for his supporters? They’ve already started with many of the J6 prisoners and the defendants in the Whitmer “kidnapping” case. That’s for real.
What do we do about these new lovers of terrorism and lawfare?
How about sending in a SWAT team authorized to use lethal force?
The fact that authorization of the use of deadly force is “boilerplate” suggests it is present in virtually every warrant served. if so, 1) shouldn’t we be concerned that we are routinely sending out agents of the govt with an OK to kill, no matter what the nature of the warrant, and 2) in the event of the highly unusual search warrant for a presidential candidate’s home, might it not be wise to go over the entire warrant and question whether any provision of the warrant might be a provision that authorizes force that it is not intended to authorize?
Every law enforcement agency has deadly use of force policy. It’s clearly emphasized that it can only be used when agents or Leo’s are threatened and believe their lives are in danger. It also lists when deadly force is not authorized. Those policies are there in the event that circumstances change or if it becomes necessary to use it.
Your local police department has one too.
Isn’t it possible that the auth can be abused? Or simply interpreted differently, i.e. the killing of Ashli Babbitt? Can you picture ANY circumstance where a warrant to seize docs (particularly those under the watchful eye of the Secret Service) could justify deadly force?
emphasized that it can only be used when agents or Leo’s are threatened and believe their lives are in danger
Randy Weaver had his wife murdered by Federal agents, as she stood on her porch, holding her infant child.
That sniper was fearing for his life for sure
Good, very good. The federal government is and has been out-of-control for decades and decades as it claims authority not given by the People. To manage 350 million people seems to require excessive force simply because of a failure to think clearly on what the function of that government is and for. Too much has been illegally taken from the People with the procedures to challenge those takings ineffective. Mouth-pieces of higher education backup those claims by government by rote indoctrination without foreseeing the consequences of their actions, thus there is this system beyond a rational, effective, and peaceful control by the People.
Government without coercion must be the new standard, but, of course, that requires a better educated Citizen and by a better educated system of education where the means of operating the whole system, that is to say everything, is done in accordance to an improved framework of the system and the Citizens contained within.
The singular American failure is the judicial branch, with emphasis on the Supreme Court.
Start here: Secession is not prohibited and is fully constitutional. Everything Lincoln and his progressive/socialist/communist successors did was and remains invalid, illegitimate, illicit, and unconstitutional. One may not violate fundamental law and have his subsequent acts declared legal and constitutional.
The post-Lincoln communist state must have been struck down from the outset every step of the way.
Lincoln’s installation of a foreign 4-million-man standing army on U.S. soil, in direct violation of the Naturalization Act of 1802, which was in full force and effect on January 1, 1863, was illicit, unconstitutional and an actionable crime of high office and must have been struck down immediately and with extreme prejudice.
I totally agree with you. We are not talking about arresting a murderer, this was a warrant for a document search that were secured in a SCIF, and it was taken to the extreme to humiliate the Trump family. IMO when you authorize deadly force, line up a hospital in case of gunshot injuries, that is not routine and is pushing the law to the extreme. Jack Smith is not helping the dimocrats one iota.
Much too logical for the Democrat mind.
Dan Bongino ?sp? while now a conservative pundit, was Secret Service.
He called out the nonsense about it being SoP.
Especially when there were Secret Service Agents on prem which meant that they would normally have to coordinate.
What’s even more telling and yet another reason to dismiss the lawsuit… An Obama era doc showed that the NA already had copies. of the docs Trump retained.
So there was no reason for any of this ….
Its all political.
Assuming Trump wins… he would be within his right to appoint an USAG who would go after many of the actors here.
It should scare them, and they are putting it out there ahead of anything as a way to deter Trump.
The DAs and some of the judges are breaking the law in terms of election interference. The NY cases are no brainers and both judges should be disbarred and taken off the bench at a minimum.
-G
Assuming Trump wins, he MUST pull a full “Lincoln” and impose martial law, suspend habeas corpus, smash printing presses, throw opponents in prison, ignore unconstitutional legislation, and seize power, not for the reason Lincoln did, to “Save the Union,” but to “Save the Nation” by extirpating Lincoln’s acts and those of his progressive, socialist, and communist successors, and re-implementing the Constitution, Bill of Rights, and Naturalization Act of 1790.
It would be the quickest path but absolute power is corrupting. Without Congress it would be impossible to achieve a clean up, without a tribunal it would just be another death by meeting, layers of investigations and Wordsmithing without accountability.
Give them what they deserve!
It’s like the 15th century and regressing. The FBI rented a u-haul? Really?
They were looters dressed in costumes. Then the cover-up began.
Face it. Twin towers went down so make a new plan. Fascists is an idea thrown around and other muck like existential, elites, and bunches of other junk Americans care nothing about. Fascists must be the big business folks. Yes, that’s the place to be. No one does service in government anymore except bartenders and food service and a few other trades people.
Vocab development…the phrase made of whole cloth must come from fabrication. Fabrication contains the the fabric. Both mean —> a lie. 🤦♀️
‘Attorney General Merrick Garland should exercise a modicum of responsibility in his supervision of the case.’
😂😂😂 Oh, Professor. 🤷🏽♂️
you mean rat face?
I think everyone is missing the real question. The left is correct that this sort of deadly force provision is pro forma in these types of raids. The real question is why did they authorize this type of raid on a compound that was under secret service protection in the first place?
I would be satisfied if Attorney General Merrick Garland were to exercise a modicum of responsibility in his oversight of this case. But based upon what I have seen of Garland’s actions over the previous four years, I don’t see that as likely. Or possible.
Turley is being lambasted by readers here. Because he’s not going on the expectations that most of his crazier readers want, to fully support Trump’s rhetoric. Obviously he strongly disagrees, but as an appeasement he leaves out why he disagrees.
Turley strongly disagreed with his Jan 6 speech and also never said why. If he took the effort to explain why he so strongly disagrees he would be immediately excoriated by Trump supporters and his status as a valued legal analyst on Fox News would be threatened. So he treads carefully, because exercising free speech does come with consequences.
Gag orders serve a purpose and even Turley would be forced to concede that they are necessary and he certainly would be agreeable that a limited one is sometimes necessary. He imposes a gag order on readers here. You can’t make openly racist comments or curse to your heart’s content. Because that kind of speech is protected free speech, it’s offensive and obnoxious so he gags his own readers from saying those things instead of using ‘good’ speech to counter. That’s his solution to that kind of speech. But it’s not the solution on his own blog. That kind of hypocrisy belittles the professor’s credibility.
“He imposes a gag order on readers here.”…
This isn’t a courtroom nor a trial…he owns his blog,he’s allowed to do what he wants….
Cry your tears over at your own blog cry baby
@jmjUSA,
It still makes him a hypocrite. He believes gag orders are unconstitutional because the court shouldn’t be limiting Trump’s lying.
But Turley believes lying is protected speech and the only solution against it is more speech. Racist comments and cursing are also protected speech. Turley doesn’t adhere to his beliefs and imposes a gag on racist speech because he doesn’t like it. He’s clearly being a hypocrite.
But Turley believes lying is protected speech and the only solution against it is more speech.
That’s not Turley’s opinion. It’s the Constitution
George, you inaccurately say Turley never said why he condemned Jan 6. You are wrong on that. Here it is. https://jonathanturley.org/2021/01/13/the-case-for-a-trump-censure/
Authorization of shoot to kill search warrant for a former President and current candidate. Couple this with what transpired with the fake dossier, James Comey FISA warrant fabrication and what is now known about the DOJ handling of classified documents. Oh yeah, SOP.
There’s a reckoning coming.