Even core political speech addressing matters of public concern is not impenetrable from prosecution if allegedly used to further criminal activity.

The argument in this article is that this view constitutes a logical fallacy. And it may very well be. But when one really looks at what is said here, I wonder:

1. Does the government have the power to assail free speech? Of course they do. Are they allowed to? I think this is a complex question. Clearly, the reasoning here is that the US has skin in the game as being defrauded or harmed.

Can the government claim such? Of course it can. One only need to look at the several titles of the USC to conclude that this premise is considered ok.

For instance, if you torch a Federal Building, owned by the USA, you harm the interests of the USA, clearly.

One might be tempted to go further and pose this question: Is the USA harmed by a President who talks about election fraud and to which he clearly has evidence?

Elections are a contentious matter in it's very nature as it rests upon indirect means to convey trustworthiness. This trust is decreased when all means to game the election are employed. And that gaming is at the heart of the contention. One side will say A, another side will say B. This is a conflict that needs resolution by open discussion and presentation and weighing of evidence.

2. is not impenetrable from prosecution

Wow. Who would have thought: The USA government, bound by the 1st amendment that clearly prima facie limits the government in terms of laws and actions it can take.

Is the government harmed by discussions on the quality of the election? No. The reason is a simple: The only reason governments are instituted among men is to protect the rights of men, not to protect the systemic rights of a government.

Does that mean that governments will never try? Nope. Governments are made up of parties of men with agendas. There is an interesting article on the first 12 years of the USA, and how party infighting lead to a law that made any criticism on the President or government a federal crime. It is called the Alien and Sedition Act. https://www.history.com/topics/early-us/alien-and-sedition-acts

And this is exactly the current government position, driven by an Hamiltonian zeal to create a strong central government. It is not for nothing the DEMS, when the musical came out, all celebrated it.

Jefferson wrote this:

“The basis of our governments being the opinion of the people, the very first object should be to keep that right; and were it left to me to decide whether we should have a government without newspapers or newspapers without a government, I should not hesitate a moment to prefer the latter.”

So, here we have the contention in full view. But note what the judge said: From what is free speech not impenetrable? From prosecution. So, governments, due to their very nature will try to impinge upon freedoms time and again, and need reminding of the fact that The People have created government to protect their unalienable rights. The Government did not create The People, although, it seems, Bribem is trying very very hard.

At any rate, the logical fallacy in my view is the wrong premise on which cases are being brought, and allowed to proceed. These cases prima facie cannot stand.