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.
Also, did they just admit that January 6th was an insurrection attempt and not a peaceful tourist viait?
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.
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.