Former President Donald Trump is currently undergoing a trial for his federal election interference case which accuses him of trying to overturn his 2020 election loss. Currently, special counsel Jack Smith is insisting that a gag rule be placed on Trump again due to his remarks attempting to intimidate witnesses on social media.
There was a gag rule initially put on him last week by U.S. District Judge Tanya Chutkan due to his statements targeting prosecutors and court personnel as well as his attempt to discourage witnesses. Trump appealed the order and asked that the gag rule be put on hold. Judge Chutkan did temporarily remove the restrictions but since then Trump returned to making remarks on social media.
Trump posted a message on Truth Social on October 24th that stated: “Some people would make that deal, but they are weaklings and cowards, and so bad for the future of our Failing Nation. I don’t think that Mark Meadows is one of them, but who really knows?”. This was in response to ABC News reporting Mark Meadows, Trump’s last chief of staff, allegedly testifying in exchange for immunity.
Smith wants the court to clarify that Trump cannot communicate with or about witnesses even on social media. He believes the gag rule is needed in order to protect the witnesses from Trump’s remarks.
We’ve discussed in class how the Constitution has a loose interpretation and therefore people can argue whether or not something is or is not constitutional. In this case, the ACLU claims that the gag rule is unconstitutional because it is too vague and encroaches on Trump’s First Amendment right to the freedom of speech. Specifically, the ACLU believes that there is little detail about what it means to “target” witnesses.
Do you believe Trump should have the gag rule placed on him again? I believe that he should since he is interfering with what should be a fair trial. Intimidating witnesses and court personnel can interfere with their emotions and what is said in court. However, I think the language used for the gag rule should be changed to be more specific about what Trump is not allowed to say so that there is a clear line between right and wrong. This way no one will feel as if the restrictions are unfairly vague.
Sources: https://www.npr.org/2023/10/26/1208777351/trump-gag-order-jan-6-case-smith-special-counsel
https://thehill.com/regulation/court-battles/4275146-aclu-trump-jan-6-gag-order-unconstitutional/
6 comments:
I personally believe that Trump, for at least the beginning of the trial, should have a somewhat limiting gag order place on him as he has already clearly gone after potential witnesses on social media, which could have large implications on the trial itself, because of his obvious social presence. Additionally, the "First Amendment" argument is a little bit hazy, because Trump is potentially harming someone/something (the trial) from his posts and remarks, meaning that limiting such actions would not actually be encroaching his 1st amendment rights. Ultimately, I think if the restrictions themselves are more specific as you suggested it could fix many issues with the confusions surrounding the gag rule.
I agree with your opinion that a gag order should be placed on Trump. With his huge number of followers, Trump wields a significant amount of influence that can have potentially devastating results. We've already seen an example of this with the January 6th insurrection, where Trump's calls for his supporters to march at the Capitol very likely incited the insurrection. Trump has also shown that he is likely to do something similar in his ongoing trials, having doxed the address of NY Attorney General Letitia James. To protect the court personnel and witnesses involved in the trial and prevent them from being intimidated or influenced by Trump's actions, I believe a gag order is necessary. Regarding concerns about the constitutionality of a gag order, a court is allowed to prevent the parties involved in a case from commenting on it. Therefore, a gag order does not infringe on his rights. However, Trump could still technically leak information to the media, as it is considered unconstitutional for gag orders to restrict the speech of the press.
https://www.reuters.com/legal/government/us-capitol-riot-probe-turns-focus-trump-allies-extremist-groups-2022-07-12/
https://news.yahoo.com/trump-shares-article-doxxing-ny-222043829.html?guccounter=1&guce_referrer=aHR0cHM6Ly93d3cuZ29vZ2xlLmNvbS8&guce_referrer_sig=AQAAAG7zuRy0fQ5blQhnz32kW01S_1slRxEcCYODVQNEcZ3JQcjIyOGlrj0l1KbIYkmqiEPzPU-wMxjdLlNxDi8ECxZREjfigugYffn49nCCY6kWp4MPExF49jrqqF9Ny6jkOgQUkI0Ka2T6eNKJd3Nj_wG5h5psbSiq5HYVYhPzI2OZ
I concur with your opinion that a gag rule should be placed on Trump. Considering that the majority of things that comes out of his mouth or social media accounts are inflammatory and targeted, it would be better for the sake of America, his party and frankly Trump himself if he was quieted down a bit. I'm honestly surprised that his lawyers haven't limited his presence on social media as he just continues to dig himself and the rest of the election-deniers deeper into a hole and eventually he's going to face the consequences of it. Especially considering his weird, mob-boss-esque statements concerning those involved in the judicial process of his case, it'd be best for the safety of witnesses and court officials, and for his own cover, to have a gag order placed. Of course, the constitutionality of this can be contended on the basis that free speech is a right given by the constitution, and that placing a gag order would be going against that right, but in times of crisis like this I believe it is necessary to do what needs to be done. Trump is a dangerous individual and if his right to free speech is encroaching on others' right to safety, then the gag rule is not an unfounded solution.
Yes, personally I believe that the gag rule should be placed on Trump. In class we've studied the impact media, and in this age of technology evolution, social media, has on the public. Trump has always been very vocal on X, formerly Twitter. It's one of his strongest platforms of spreading his ideas to his "fanbase", it’s a source of influence and power for him. I also think the court should consider the moral implications that come with the First Amendment. What is more important, the First Amendment rights of a single individual (Trump), or the guarantee of safety for a group of people (witnesses and court personnel)? Personally, I believe the latter holds a greater importance.
I also agree that Trump should have the gag rule placed on him. It is really scary how powerful his words are as seen in the event that took place on January 6th. It took Trump one speech to get his "supporters" to march down to one of the countries most powerful buildings and not only successfully breach that building but also interfere with the count of the electoral college ballots which would be the final step to elect President Biden. Especially now with the fact that Trump has his community on their own social media app there really is no limit of what his words can produce hence why I agree that Trump should have the gag rule placed on him.
While the gag order for Trump for his trial seems very strong due to the frequency with which he posts, and the popularity his social media posts receive, I’d argue that this popularity and influence is what makes it necessary. Trump has dismissed the idea that his statements would directly interfere with the witnesses or trial, and claimed the restriction placed on him were based only on “speculation” of what his followers might do. That said, his statements towards Meadows, compared to “weaklings and cowards” for his willingness to testify, seem as if they would clearly influence his decision: Trump is the most powerful figure in the Republican Party, and Meadows is a strongly conservative Republican politician. Any insults from Trump could practically make him an outcast in the Republican Party, and his political career would be over; thus, Trump’s statements would make him less willing to testify and give evidence harmful to Trump’s case. However, I do see the ACLU’s point that the order to not “target” witnesses is too vague: I think it’d be reasonable to want the order to be more specific in its wording, limiting the scope of possible interpretation.
https://thehill.com/regulation/court-battles/4300582-trump-dismisses-risks-asks-appeals-court-to-toss-gag-order/
Post a Comment