The cornerstone of America’s democratic ideals has always been the cherished First Amendment, a bedrock principle ensuring that every citizen has the inalienable right to express their views and opinions freely.
So when an Obama-appointed federal judge recently declared that this sacred right is “not absolute,” eyebrows weren’t just raised – they shot up in disbelief.
Judge Tanya S. Chutkan’s recent statement in the Jan. 6 case concerning former President Trump’s alleged efforts to influence the 2020 election results is a chilling reminder that our most fundamental liberties are under direct assault.
And, from whom?
The very figures who’ve sworn to uphold and defend the Constitution.
When Trump’s defense made a compelling First Amendment argument, they were doing more than just representing their client.
They were championing a cause that resonates deeply with millions of Americans – the unyielding belief that freedom of speech, especially political speech, should remain untainted and uncurtailed.
Yet, here we stand, watching as a federal judge – one with ties to the Obama administration no less – tries to recalibrate our understanding of the First Amendment.
“Mr. Trump, like every American, has a First Amendment right to free speech, but that right is not absolute,” Chutkan claimed, implying that some mystical “rules” apply to free speech in criminal cases.
One has to wonder: Is this the beginning of a slippery slope?
If a former president’s words can be contorted and constrained, what hope do everyday Americans have in expressing their dissenting opinions without fear of persecution?
Judge Tanya Chutkan said she's “prepared to rule immediately” on some aspects of the protective order, further saying, Trump's free speech right "is not absolute."
— The Hill (@thehill) August 11, 2023
US District Judge Tanya Chutkan says former President Donald Trump has a right to free speech but that right is "not absolute," and she plans to issue a protective order over the handling of evidence in the 2020 election interference case https://t.co/9rFeq4tbVg
— CNN Politics (@CNNPolitics) August 11, 2023
Judge Tanya Chutkan. Has that cow read the Constitution?
Free Speech IS Absolute.
— Fianna (@fianna35) August 12, 2023
Remember, these aren’t just technicalities we’re discussing.
These are the very foundations of our nation. The alarming stance taken by Judge Chutkan might be a harbinger of what’s to come if unchecked liberal ideologies continue to wield their influence over the judiciary.
It’s a wakeup call, sounding the alarm that our most precious American values and ideals are facing a formidable challenge.
The battle for the heart and soul of our Constitution is very much alive, and it’s time to rally in defense of it.
Axios has more details:
The federal judge overseeing the case involving former President Trump’s alleged efforts to subvert 2020 election results agreed Friday to the defense’s proposal for a more limited scope of the protective order, but argued that Trump’s right to free speech is “not absolute,” according to multiple reports.
Why it matters: Trump’s lawyers have made a First Amendment argument central to their defense in the Jan. 6 case, saying that the former president’s actions surrounding the 2020 election were protected political speech.
“Mr. Trump, like every American, has a First Amendment right to free speech, but that right is not absolute,” U.S. District Judge Tanya S. Chutkan said during her first hearing over the case. “In a criminal case such as this one, the defendant’s free speech is subject to the rules.”
Driving the news: Chutkan said that she plans to issue a protective order over the handling of evidence in the case, which is the subject of debate between Trump’s attorneys and prosecutors.
Here we go again. Just when you thought the game of political chess couldn’t get more calculated, the Democrats throw another pawn into the fray, making a bold move against none other than former President Donald Trump.
But this isn’t just any move—it’s an attempt to silence him.
If there was ever a blatant display of election interference, this is it!
Imagine this: Judge Tanya Chutkan, presiding over Trump’s 2020 election interference case, has chosen now, of all times, to stifle Trump’s speech as he’s gearing up for his 2024 campaign.
The audacity is nothing short of breathtaking.
Chutkan is gearing up to issue a protective order, limiting what Trump can and cannot vocalize about the case.
Under the guise of preventing interference with the “judicial process”.
The timing, the optics, the sheer magnitude of this move—it reeks of political manipulation.
Let’s be clear about something.
We’re talking about the former President of the United States, a man who has been a vocal critic of the system and has garnered a vast following because of his candid nature.
Now, the very essence of his appeal—his voice—is being threatened.
While Chutkan pays lip service to the First Amendment, she concludes that the “administration of justice” trumps (pun intended) Trump’s campaign.
In essence, she’s saying that the court’s proceedings are more important than the democratic process of an election campaign.
Judge Tanya Chutkan announced on Friday that she will issue a protective order in former President Trump’s 2020 election case.
— NTD Television (@TelevisionNTD) August 11, 2023
Judge Tanya Chutkan specified that Trump is entitled to First Amendment protections. But his free speech is “not absolute” while he is the subject of a criminal case. https://t.co/oeVGN76cWM
— The Nation (@thenation) August 11, 2023
Judge Tanya Chutkan in the protective order hearing:
"Mr. Trump, like every American, has a first amendment right to free speech. But that right is not absolute."
— Kyle Griffin (@kylegriffin1) August 11, 2023
One can’t help but wonder: is this really about protecting the integrity of the trial?
Or is it a move designed to hinder Trump’s momentum, muffle his voice, and dampen his chances in 2024?
If we were to bet, the latter seems more plausible.
Trump’s response, expressed on Truth Social, hits the nail on the head, “No, I shouldn’t have a protective order placed on me because it would impinge upon my right to FREE SPEECH.”
But of course, Judge Chutkan seems to think otherwise.
The move is not only a slap in the face to Trump but also to every American who believes in the right to free speech.
Forbes confirms the infringement of President Trump’s First Amendment right:
Judge Tanya Chutkan, who is presiding over former President Donald Trump’s 2020 election interference case, said Friday she plans to issue a protective order to prohibit Trump from speaking about certain aspects of the case in an effort to prevent him from interfering with the judicial process, restricting the former president’s speech as he ramps up his 2024 campaign.
The protective order comes at the request of the prosecution, which initially proposed a much broader protective order that Chutkan rejected in favor of a more limited one, saying she disagreed with the prosecution on the scope of what information was deemed sensitive.
Chutkan said that Trump “like every American, has a First Amendment right to free speech,” but that right is “not absolute” and “in a criminal case such as this one, the defendant’s free speech is subject to the rules.”Advertisement
This is a direct repudiation of Trump and his legal team’s argument that any restrictions on what the former president can and can’t say would be violation of his constitutional rights; Trump wrote on Truth Social before the hearing, “No, I shouldn’t have a protective order placed on me because it would impinge upon my right to FREE SPEECH.”
Chutkan said that a protective order was necessary because otherwise Trump could release information to taint the jury pool, intimidate witnesses or otherwise interfere with the “process of justice.”
Chutkan also addressed the concerns about how this might affect Trump’s campaign, saying the campaign “has to yield to the administration of justice,” and “if that means he can’t say exactly what he wants to say in a political speech, that is just how it’s going to have to be.”
Trump’s attorney, John Lauro, raised the question of whether Trump can publicly remark on something from his personal memory during his campaign that also happens to be evidence in the case, saying “what we are talking about is fair use of information.” (Chutkan responded by saying she would ensure Trump is entitled to all his rights.)
This case’s unfolding events underscore the need for vigilance.
This isn’t just about one man—it’s about the sanctity of our democratic processes, the freedom of speech, and the lengths some factions will go to maintain power.
It’s election interference cloaked in judicial garb, and it’s a shame that such maneuvers are even a part of the conversation.
America, take notice.
This is the game being played in broad daylight.