With all due respect to President Trump, the First Amendment right to free speech doesn't give people the right to say whatever they want, whenever or wherever they want to say it.
It's not an absolute right. There are many restrictions to speech and expression that are perfectly legal. Libel, slander, pornography, fraud, obscenity, threats, etc...
And judges are well within their rights to put gag orders and protective orders on people involved in court cases. It's not a violation of free speech.
I know I'll probably get a lot of flak for this post, but I think many people have a distorted view of what free speech entails. And posts like this, from a President, no less, only works to mislead people further in what one of our most important rights is.
Not comparing the two cases at all, but the 1st amendment defense of the sheik who was the "mastermind" of the first bombing of the World Trade Center was rejected by the jury, prosecution, and judge in the Federal case. The defense claimed he was never involved, but admitted that he did say "the only way to attack the USA was to attack their idols, monuments, and centers of finance", he himself "preached" this, but they had no physical evidence that he was part of anything. I think the lawyer said something like, "if someone yells 'kill the umpire' during a game, and then someone actually does kill the umpire, they cannot be held for murder". So, there was precedent set in a federal court. The sheik was sent away for life in a Federal prison.
I don't quite understand what your point is here. Could you help me out a bit?
And could you tell me which of the defendants of the 1993 WTC bombing case you're speaking about? Maybe if I read about the case it would give me a better understanding of what you're trying to say.
In the federal case US vs Rahman, the sheik was convicted of seditious conspiracy , He was impicated as the mastermind of the 1st world trade center bombing, due to the fact the US was able to prove that he had issues a "fatwa" to destroy government buildings. He was also the enemy of the Mubarek regime in Egypt. The defense claimed that his "fatwa" was based on religious speech, which was protected under the 1st amendment. What I am saying is, that President Trumps lawyers seem to be using the 1st amendment right in this case that Jack Smith has brought against the President, and that, that the US Federal Court has set a precedent in defeating that case, in US vs Rahman. So, since the precedent has already been set, it may not be a solid win for Trumps defense. Just research US vs Rahman, there is lots of info on it. When i read that Trumps lawyers are going to use that defense, it reminded me of this old case.
Ok, I understand better now. We're talking about two separate things right now, both involving free speech.
What this post is about (oversimplifying here a bit) is the judge in the case saying Trump can't talk about the case in public, and Trump saying this violates his free speech rights.
What you seem to be talking about is completely different, Trump perhaps planning to use his rights to free speech as a defense during his trial.
No. NDAs are contracts that private citizens voluntarily enter into.
Freedom of speech concerns the government not being able to censor citizens or retaliate against them for expressing their views, thoughts, etc...
But freedom of speech is not absolute. There are some limitations. For example, freedom of speech does not cover libel, slander, harassment, threats, obscenity, pornography, etc... There can also be limits placed on where, when, and how people may express themselves. Such as needing permits to hold a demonstration, and being able to use noise amplification like loudspeakers. Or in this case, judges put out gag orders or protective orders on participants in a case.
It's extremely concerning the misconceptions people have concerning free speech. Especially here. Somewhere along the line, people got the idea that free speech means we can say whatever we want, whenever and wherever we want. And that's simply not true.
Like, I said. They are free to not sign it. If they want to be involved with him, they can make the decision to sign. Trump didn't choose to be involved with Jack. Just like corporate restaurants, if you work for KFC, you chose to work there but you are not free to disclose the 11 herbs and spices because you sign paperwork that says you can not share proprietary information.
When I retired from the military I had to sign one that said I would never divulge any information that I had gained by working on a top secret job. They’re pretty common in the military sector. I had no problem signing it because I knew by discussing my job would allow certain projects to be compromised
how can it be 4:19pm on 08/07/2023?
Iceland?
Ascension Island?
With all due respect to President Trump, the First Amendment right to free speech doesn't give people the right to say whatever they want, whenever or wherever they want to say it.
It's not an absolute right. There are many restrictions to speech and expression that are perfectly legal. Libel, slander, pornography, fraud, obscenity, threats, etc...
And judges are well within their rights to put gag orders and protective orders on people involved in court cases. It's not a violation of free speech.
I know I'll probably get a lot of flak for this post, but I think many people have a distorted view of what free speech entails. And posts like this, from a President, no less, only works to mislead people further in what one of our most important rights is.
Good points made
Not comparing the two cases at all, but the 1st amendment defense of the sheik who was the "mastermind" of the first bombing of the World Trade Center was rejected by the jury, prosecution, and judge in the Federal case. The defense claimed he was never involved, but admitted that he did say "the only way to attack the USA was to attack their idols, monuments, and centers of finance", he himself "preached" this, but they had no physical evidence that he was part of anything. I think the lawyer said something like, "if someone yells 'kill the umpire' during a game, and then someone actually does kill the umpire, they cannot be held for murder". So, there was precedent set in a federal court. The sheik was sent away for life in a Federal prison.
I don't quite understand what your point is here. Could you help me out a bit?
And could you tell me which of the defendants of the 1993 WTC bombing case you're speaking about? Maybe if I read about the case it would give me a better understanding of what you're trying to say.
Thanks.
In the federal case US vs Rahman, the sheik was convicted of seditious conspiracy , He was impicated as the mastermind of the 1st world trade center bombing, due to the fact the US was able to prove that he had issues a "fatwa" to destroy government buildings. He was also the enemy of the Mubarek regime in Egypt. The defense claimed that his "fatwa" was based on religious speech, which was protected under the 1st amendment. What I am saying is, that President Trumps lawyers seem to be using the 1st amendment right in this case that Jack Smith has brought against the President, and that, that the US Federal Court has set a precedent in defeating that case, in US vs Rahman. So, since the precedent has already been set, it may not be a solid win for Trumps defense. Just research US vs Rahman, there is lots of info on it. When i read that Trumps lawyers are going to use that defense, it reminded me of this old case.
Ok, I understand better now. We're talking about two separate things right now, both involving free speech.
What this post is about (oversimplifying here a bit) is the judge in the case saying Trump can't talk about the case in public, and Trump saying this violates his free speech rights.
What you seem to be talking about is completely different, Trump perhaps planning to use his rights to free speech as a defense during his trial.
oh, okay, I jumped the gun, in that case, did not mean to, so much to keep track of, sometimes my head spins.
Completely understandable. There is constantly something new coming out from every direction.
Operative word is”leaking”.
infringe vs impinge
Impinge is to hit or to strike something
i think Trump is using impinge as this is a hit job, nothing else.
Of course, those of us here are well aware.
He didn't sign one of those with Jack. Anyone is free to not sign one with Trump and not work with him.
No. NDAs are contracts that private citizens voluntarily enter into.
Freedom of speech concerns the government not being able to censor citizens or retaliate against them for expressing their views, thoughts, etc...
But freedom of speech is not absolute. There are some limitations. For example, freedom of speech does not cover libel, slander, harassment, threats, obscenity, pornography, etc... There can also be limits placed on where, when, and how people may express themselves. Such as needing permits to hold a demonstration, and being able to use noise amplification like loudspeakers. Or in this case, judges put out gag orders or protective orders on participants in a case.
It's extremely concerning the misconceptions people have concerning free speech. Especially here. Somewhere along the line, people got the idea that free speech means we can say whatever we want, whenever and wherever we want. And that's simply not true.
NO.
I was responding to your NDA comment.
Like, I said. They are free to not sign it. If they want to be involved with him, they can make the decision to sign. Trump didn't choose to be involved with Jack. Just like corporate restaurants, if you work for KFC, you chose to work there but you are not free to disclose the 11 herbs and spices because you sign paperwork that says you can not share proprietary information.
When I retired from the military I had to sign one that said I would never divulge any information that I had gained by working on a top secret job. They’re pretty common in the military sector. I had no problem signing it because I knew by discussing my job would allow certain projects to be compromised
One day troll says what?
NDA is your choice to sign on or not.
Those pesky facts just keep getting in the way.
No. That is a contract. Trump doesn't "make" anyone sign it. It comes as a condition for employment, as it does in many industries.