jack smith

Historic Mistake For Freedom of Speech Law Professor Laments

The “implications for free speech are chilling,” Jonathan Turley observes. The decision to add a second indictment of rightful President Donald Trump is a mistake of historic proportion.

Chilling to free speech

Constitutional Law Professor Jonathan Turley had a few things to say about the chilling implications for free speech buried in the latest trumped up charges against the fearless conservative leader.

Democrats are jumping up and down for joy as Jack Smith acts a lot like an evil time lord, out to destroy humanity. It doesn’t help that Mr. Smith looks like one and prefers to dress the same, too.

The first thing which caught professor Turley by surprise was the fact that the grand inquisitor “did not charge incitement or insurrection.” Not even “seditious conspiracy.

The media was quick to zoom in on portraying “the case as holding Trump accountable for the actual riot in the Capitol.” They ignore the attack on free speech. The whole problem with that is “Trump was impeached on incitement charges.” And walked.

The networks “are now shrugging off the conspicuous omission of those charges while attacking those of us with free speech concerns as apologists.” To Professor Turley, “special counsel Jack Smith made history” on August 1.

It wasn’t just the federal indictment of a former president. Smith already did that in June with the indictment of Donald Trump on charges that he mishandled classified documents.” Instead, “Smith and his team have made history in the worst way by attempting to fully criminalize disinformation by seeking the incarceration for a politician on false claims made during and after an election.

Fueled by Trump hatred

The swamp’s hatred for Donald Trump is so “all-encompassing,” Turley points out, that “legal experts on the political left have ignored the chilling implications of this indictment.” The evil persecutor based his complaint “largely on statements that are protected under the First Amendment.

That means “it would eviscerate free speech and could allow the government to arrest those who are accused of spreading disinformation in elections.” Like you.

The Supreme Court already decided the issue once and for all back in 2012. That’s when they decided 6-3 that “it is unconstitutional to criminalize lies.” Especially when they are lies told by a politician and specifically when that politician “lied about military decorations.

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,” SCOTUS wrote in the Alvarez decision.

You can’t “give government a broad censorial power unprecedented in this Court’s cases or in our constitutional tradition.” It all boils down to whether Trump believed what others were telling him.

Ignoring the part of Trump’s speech where he told everyone to remain peaceful, “Smith is indicting Trump for believing his lawyers over his other advisers.” That has Turley steamed. “When, in politics, does making a false statement cross the line into criminal behavior? Those are questions Smith and his team must answer in court, and ones that Trump’s defense team is likely to raise.” That’s why, he concludes, “this latest indictment of Trump isn’t just wrong. It is reckless.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.

Previous Article

Cancer Survivor Walks the Runway For New York Fashion Week, Reveals Her Inspiring Story

Next Article
CIA

Newest Twitter Files Email Reveals Former CIA Agent Attempted to Hide Role at Twitter

Related Posts