You absolutely can yell fire in a crowded theater. There might be consequences for LYING and causing an UNJUSTIFIED panic. LYING and causing UNJUSTIFIED PANIC are two of the deep state's favorite things, they should suffer the consequences of doing so for so long.
It was more like the prosecutors won some and Trump's team won some.
She agreed to a protective order. This article is flat wrong that she did not issue a protective order.
She took issue with how broad the protective order should be. She did not all agree that all discovery materials should be protected, but quite a lot will be.
I'll probably make a post on this. I don't think the Trump Team got very much, there were a lot of restrictions.
Pretty much what I was going to say. Both sides asked for more than what they wanted with the expectation to lose some battles.
For example the judge wasn't going to ask the doj to individually classify 11.7m pages as sensitive or not, per Trump's team's request, but it doesn't hurt to ask.
IMO, it seems like Chutkan wants to make sure the case isn't taken away from her before it goes to trial. She only afforded Trump the same ruling she would virtually any other defendant.
That doesn't sound like Trump winning. That sounds like the court just slapped a huge proviso on his free speech. But hasn't the pretty steady declas come from others, not Trump?
So tired of other people telling me my rights are subject to their opinions
Yep, this basically reads, "I am personally giving Mr. Trump the privilege of speaking freely unless I don't like what he says."
Should be a t-shirt.
My rights are not subject to your opinions (or feelings).
We won this argument because she is scared of losing the case.
…not absolute? Are they (she) going to use something like, “You can’t yell fire in a crowded theater,” as their justification?
You absolutely can yell fire in a crowded theater. There might be consequences for LYING and causing an UNJUSTIFIED panic. LYING and causing UNJUSTIFIED PANIC are two of the deep state's favorite things, they should suffer the consequences of doing so for so long.
It feels like Trump only yells 'fire' when there actually is a 'fire in the theater'
She used the fact that he is federal defendant who has agreed to pretrial release which imposes certain conditions.
It was more like the prosecutors won some and Trump's team won some.
She agreed to a protective order. This article is flat wrong that she did not issue a protective order.
She took issue with how broad the protective order should be. She did not all agree that all discovery materials should be protected, but quite a lot will be.
I'll probably make a post on this. I don't think the Trump Team got very much, there were a lot of restrictions.
EDIT: Here's the post.
https://greatawakening.win/p/16c246eK7J/trumps-jan-6th-protective-order-/
I concur. Here is an important take on the decision.
https://www.thegatewaypundit.com/2023/08/developing-obama-judge-tanya-chutkan-gag-trump/
This article is wrong. This not a gag order. A gag order is more restrictive
A gag order still could come.
Pretty much what I was going to say. Both sides asked for more than what they wanted with the expectation to lose some battles.
For example the judge wasn't going to ask the doj to individually classify 11.7m pages as sensitive or not, per Trump's team's request, but it doesn't hurt to ask.
I just did a post on this from what I saw on twitter.
The full articles are starting to come out.
Free speech is, in fact, absolute.
Uh...YES...it IS absolute!
IMO, it seems like Chutkan wants to make sure the case isn't taken away from her before it goes to trial. She only afforded Trump the same ruling she would virtually any other defendant.
Yeah.
It actually is absolute, guaranteed by our Creator, not by men.
What an embarrassing thing for a US judge to say.
She hates the Constitution. Count on that. She probably sees it as racist and white.
That doesn't sound like Trump winning. That sounds like the court just slapped a huge proviso on his free speech. But hasn't the pretty steady declas come from others, not Trump?
Have the courts or judges said anything about retruthing or retweeting (reXing?) because it's not the author's words?
This is a protective order. It covers what is passed through discovery.
Presumably folks on social media wouldn't have access to this.
However if the tweet refers to someone who is a witness, I would guess that would be pretty clearly covered
You're right and I am thinking we live in an age when secret things find their way into the public view all the time. Leaks. Mostly them, but maybe...
This is intended to become public, but it's not supposed to come out until the trial.c
All rights are absolute, that's why they are called rights. Privilege can be withdrawn for any reason.
All our rights are absolute. No earthly government has any authority over rights.
The 2nd ensures the 1st. Always has been.