No it is not. He got pulled into the weeds by a lesser point of contention (who has authority to define "election interference" speech) rather than focus at the heart of the issue- this is a matter of freedom of speech, and the press. No govt. entity has any lawful right to infringe on the first amendment.
The point I am trying to make is: Do not fall for the bait; the distraction; the minutia of "who can define [insert first amendment violating subject here].
Focus instead on the constitutional infringement itself, at its core. The banishment of words or subjects is clearly an assault on the first amendment. It is irrelevant how, or by whom the term "election interference" is defined, because the first amendment prohibits this.
That's the point he is making
No it is not. He got pulled into the weeds by a lesser point of contention (who has authority to define "election interference" speech) rather than focus at the heart of the issue- this is a matter of freedom of speech, and the press. No govt. entity has any lawful right to infringe on the first amendment.
The point I am trying to make is: Do not fall for the bait; the distraction; the minutia of "who can define [insert first amendment violating subject here].
Focus instead on the constitutional infringement itself, at its core. The banishment of words or subjects is clearly an assault on the first amendment. It is irrelevant how, or by whom the term "election interference" is defined, because the first amendment prohibits this.