Not covered under the First Amendment: The ACLU is wrong about Trump and incitement to violence

A liberal law professor disagrees with the ACLU's defense of Trump's speech at a rally where violence occurred

Last week, federal judge David Hale ruled that Trump’s exhortation for the audience at a March 2016 rally in Louisville, Kentucky, to “get ’em [three protesters] out of here” could be incitement. That is unusual enough to make headlines, especially because the defendant is Donald Trump. But the real shocker is that last week, the ACLU publicly defended Trump. The ACLU has defended Trump. The ACLU. Donald Trump. Defended.

I've always said that you know the ACLU is doing something right - because they usually manage to piss off everybody sooner or later

I agree with the ACLU. God help me

What makes the Trump incitement case so unusual is that it concerns political speech, both from the alleged inciter and the victims of the incitement. Political speech, particularly speech at political rallies, is basically the sweet spot for First Amendment protection. You can’t get much more in tune with what the Constitution was meant to protect, at least according to the Supreme Court.

So what happens when political speakers collide, literally? On one hand you have the protesters, silently holding signs that insulted or criticized Donald Trump. (Ms. Nwanguma held a poster of Mr. Trump’s face transposed on the body of a pig.) This is clearly political, protected speech. On the other hand, you have Donald Trump, a fiery presidential candidate, telling adoring masses about his candidacy and how he wants to make the country better. Again, political speech.

Whom is the First Amendment supposed to protect?

The final piece of the ACLU’s defense of Trump, and the one that gets deepest into First Amendment cases, is Rowland’s argument that Trump’s words were not “likely to incite violence.” To make this argument, Rowland brushes off the claims of one of the assailants who counter-sued Trump by arguing that he did take Trump’s words as an order, which he obeyed. In this Bizarro-World scenario, this bleeding-heart-liberal legal academic has to come out and say something I didn’t think I would ever have to say: I think the ACLU is wrong. I think ACLU has misinterpreted the requirements for incitement.

I've gone around and around on this one in my head. I believe Trump was inciting violence. I also know that it's not something that can be proven. There is so much about our current situation in this country that's wrong. One side absolutely sees it - the other thinks that side is nuts. The Rule of Law is all we have if we're not going to let our democracy slip away, let alone openly embrace something else. I've been wondering for a while now how we're supposed to tackle a problem by the book if it's as hard to define as this is

Anyhow - thoughts?

a reply to: Spiramirabilis

I think we should start holding PSA's that teach no matter who tells you to violent, you don't obey. I agree with you simply because it's the safer of the two, to side on free speech vs possibly being wrong that it was incitement. In my heart and mind though it was incitement and it was repetitive.

saying get them out of here isnt giving Violent action. now if he said BEat them up that would be different but he didnt. Sometimes you have to take a statement LITERALLY.

originally posted by: Kali74
a reply to: Spiramirabilis

I think we should start holding PSA's that teach no matter who tells you to violent, you don't obey. I agree with you simply because it's the safer of the two, to side on free speech vs possibly being wrong that it was incitement. In my heart and mind though it was incitement and it was repetitive.

Get them out of here...It does not say HOW to get them out of there is that the issue? The people removing them Mis interpreted his meaning then because he didnt say anything but get them out of here.

a reply to: Kali74

I agree with you simply because it's the safer of the two, to side on free speech vs possibly being wrong that it was incitement. In my heart and mind though it was incitement and it was repetitive.

I also agree with you - that sometimes there are things that happen that aren't easy to decide with law. I know what I know - if you know what I mean

But, yeah - the ACLU is right. I did enjoy reading this piece though - I really wanted to agree with her

a reply to: yuppa

In context with other rallies and other things he said... yes I believe he incited. I'm not interested in arguing it beyond that. I came down on the side of letting him off the hook, just in case. That's going to have to be good enough.

Here's a simple question.

Are you responsible for the actions of someone else ?

No.

Are you responsible for the actions of someone else if they said X ?

Unless Trump used a jedi mind trick on them.

Still NO.

People are trying to ignore free will.

Same snip we see in the gun debate.

Always trying to make someone who doesn't do anything accountable for someone elses actions.

a reply to: Spiramirabilis

I'd really love to be able to chant lock him up, lock him up but I really didn't want to be one of those people that thinks laws exist that don't or that a law should be enforced that doesn't fit because of my feelings.

originally posted by: Kali74
a reply to: yuppa

In context with other rallies and other things he said... yes I believe he incited. I'm not interested in arguing it beyond that. I came down on the side of letting him off the hook, just in case. That's going to have to be good enough.

Laws require us to be specific though. that particular instance he didnt say anything I would consider incitement to violence. he could had been telling security to get them out of there as well and forgot to say security.

a reply to: yuppa

Laws require us to be specific though.

You are arguing with yourself. Specificity is exactly why I err on the side of free speech. I THINK he incited, I don't KNOW that he did so to the satisfaction of a violation of the law.

a reply to: Spiramirabilis

Not sure id say Trump incited violence,However i am certain you are inciting trolls.

a reply to: Spiramirabilis

America needs a grand culling of liberal activist federal judges, removing these idiots who rule purely on their benefactors' partisan wishes.

I love the ACLU. Sometimes I don't like their position, but Its rare i wouldn't support them regardless.

I agree with Kali and Spira here: its incitement. Just like porn....i know incitement when i see it. Proving it in a legal sense is a different matter, however. And as Neo said....the morons in the audience have free will. They simply chose to assume some protection due to their proximity to their mob. Even the school bully wont pick on you if its just you and them alone in the bathroom.

a reply to: dragonridr

Well, that would be something at least. A little too dry - and not enough name calling :-)

I do think Trump knew what he was doing - and also that it would work. So, all on him. Just - not legally

a reply to: bigfatfurrytexan

Well then that would make the last president guilty of murder.

After years of anti police INCITEMENT.

How many cops ended up dying ?

a reply to: burdman30ott6

Can we get rid of the Conservative activist judges too?

a reply to: burdman30ott6

America needs a grand culling of liberal activist federal judges, removing these idiots who rule purely on their benefactors' partisan wishes.

Well, of course you do

A judge rules Trump may have incited violence … and Trump again has his own mouth to blame

At the rally, Trump repeatedly said “get 'em out of here” before, according to the protesters, they were shoved and punched by his supporters. Trump's attorneys sought to have the case dismissed on free speech grounds, arguing that he didn't intend for his supporters to use force. But Hale noted that speech inciting violence is not protected by the First Amendment and ruled that there is plenty of evidence that the protesters' injuries were a “direct and proximate result” of Trump's words.

“It is plausible that Trump’s direction to ‘get 'em out of here’ advocated the use of force,” Hale wrote. “It was an order, an instruction, a command.”

I've already given my opinion, so no fun there. But - I'm open to having my mind changed

:-)

a reply to: neo96

I don't think anyone should go to jail based on your delusions.

originally posted by: Kali74
a reply to: neo96

I don't think anyone should go to jail based on your delusions.

How fast they forget or just out right ignore Baton Rouge, and Dallas.

How bout going after this guy for 'incitment'.

www.politico.com...

*crickets

a reply to: neo96

I didn't like that when it happened. I was pretty vocal about my extreme displeasure with Obama, im sure you remember.

But i fail t see how that is relevant here. Right is right, regardless of equivocation between the parties.