A New York appeals court has reinstated a gag order that barred Donald Trump from commenting about court personnel after he disparaged a law clerk in his New York civil fraud trial.
No, not quite. Trump’s lawyers appealed it, and the judge who initially reviewed the appeal simply suspended the order while the appeal was in progress. Now that the appeal has been denied, the order goes back into place.
That seems like a dangerous precedent? Like if someone at trial had a protective order not to go beat the cr*p out of a witness… They could simply appeal the order, do the deed, and then once the order is reinstated it’s now moot because they’ve already done it?!
True, but in this case his free speech is known to have inflamed his cult followers to commit acts of violence in his name, so it’s a closer comparison than it appears on the surface. Court personnel are already receiving death threats.
Oh, he absolutely should be told to shut his mouth.
The point is the courts have to be a lot more careful about circumscribing a right that has quite strong existing protections versus something that does not.
No, not quite. Trump’s lawyers appealed it, and the judge who initially reviewed the appeal simply suspended the order while the appeal was in progress. Now that the appeal has been denied, the order goes back into place.
That seems like a dangerous precedent? Like if someone at trial had a protective order not to go beat the cr*p out of a witness… They could simply appeal the order, do the deed, and then once the order is reinstated it’s now moot because they’ve already done it?!
That’s not comparing the same thing. Beating the crap out of someone is inherently illegal, free speech is not.
True, but in this case his free speech is known to have inflamed his cult followers to commit acts of violence in his name, so it’s a closer comparison than it appears on the surface. Court personnel are already receiving death threats.
Oh, he absolutely should be told to shut his mouth.
The point is the courts have to be a lot more careful about circumscribing a right that has quite strong existing protections versus something that does not.
Slander and libel are inherently illegal, being confidently wrong on the internet is not. Lucky you.
Ah, my bad.