DENVER (AP) – Attorneys for former President Donald Trump argue that an attempt to bar him from the 2024 ballot under a rarely used “insurrection” clause of the Constitution should be dismissed as a violation of his freedom of speech.
So they are really arguing that the 14th Amendment only applies to the people participating in an insurrection and that the instigator of an insurrection is protected by the 1st amendment? That one will be interesting, becuse as far as I understand it, US legal tradition also holds that the instigator of a crime is as guilty as the perpetrator. The one who orders a murder is as guilty of murder as the one committing it. Or am I wrong?
Also, did they just admit that January 6th was an insurrection attempt and not a peaceful tourist viait?Also, did they just admit that January 6th was an insurrection attempt and not a peaceful tourist viait?
Not American law expert, but I believe each side is permitted to use evidence brought to case by the other party. So… yes??
Also - by this logic every trespasser who is shot was just exercising their freedom of speech, every terrorist on domestic soil was just expressing the same freedom. If allowed, this would open a number of avenues.
This is pretty clearly baseless on the part of Trump. It’s not freedom of speech to rob a bank with a note. Or to coordinate a crime. Or to communicate insider information to allow for financial crimes… I could go on. Trump had the legal right to argue he won, and to make those cases in court. He did NOT have the legal right to stand before the Capital and wink and nudge and cajole that people inside needed to submit or suffer. Proving that difference is important, but no, there is no blanket protection that speech is never a crime.
SCROTUS might elect to disagree. Depends on if the Koch family is up on its bribes or not…
But the first amendment doesn’t provide protections from the consequences of one’s speech.
