Lawfare Archive: Why the First Amendment Doesn’t Protect Trump’s Jan. 6 Speech
Sep 2, 2024
auto_awesome
In this engaging discussion, legal experts Alan Rozenshtein, a senior editor at Lawfare and associate professor at the University of Minnesota Law School, and Jed Shugerman, a professor at Fordham Law School, dive into the First Amendment's complexities regarding Trump's speech on January 6. They analyze whether his remarks could be seen as incitement to violence and explore the nuanced legal standards influencing this debate. The conversation also touches upon the potential for criminal liability and the historical context surrounding insurrection laws.
The complexity of First Amendment protections complicates the potential criminal liability of Trump’s January 6 speech, despite its provocative content.
Experts caution that prosecuting Trump for his rhetoric could set a dangerous precedent, blurring the line between political speech and criminal incitement.
Deep dives
First Amendment Implications of Trump's Speech
The discussion centers on whether former President Trump's speech on January 6, 2021, could be interpreted as incitement to violence, given its content. The First Amendment generally protects political speech, even when it might lead to lawless behavior, as established in the Brandenburg v. Ohio case, which sets a high threshold for criminalizing speech. Trump's exhortation to 'fight like hell' is viewed through a lens of ambiguity that complicates its potential legal ramifications, as it lacked explicit directions to commit violence. The speakers argue that this ambiguity may protect Trump from prosecution, as the speech alone does not clearly demonstrate intent to incite a riot or explain imminent lawlessness.
Challenges of Prosecuting Political Speech
The conversation highlights concerns regarding precedents in prosecuting political figures based on their rhetoric, with experts emphasizing the risk of establishing a dangerous precedent if speech alone leads to criminal charges. They note that many political leaders historically use vigorous rhetoric at rallies, raising questions about how to differentiate such cases from Trump's without risking partisan legal actions. The experts also underline the hindsight bias in interpreting Trump's speech in light of the violence that ensued, cautioning against equating the outcomes of the speech with its intent. It is further argued that the protection of political speech remains crucial to safeguarding First Amendment rights.
Potential Criminal Liabilities and Overt Acts
Three primary categories of potential criminal liability related to Trump's actions are discussed: incitement to riot, obstruction of justice, and insurrection. The speakers suggest that while Trump's speech is legally protected under the First Amendment, new evidence demonstrates actions taken by him, such as ordering magnetometers to be removed from the crowd, could indicate intent and recklessness. This removal increased the risk of violence, contributing to a potential legal argument that he could be held liable for incitement. Furthermore, attempts to physically attend the Capitol rally bolster arguments against Trump's protective speech provisions under the law.
Judicial and Political Consequences of Prosecution
The conversation culminates in weighing the judicial and political implications of potentially prosecuting Trump. While a prosecution could signify accountability and uphold the rule of law, there are concerns regarding the possible chaos such an action could unleash in the American political landscape. Experts acknowledge the challenges of securing a conviction in a highly politicized environment, emphasizing the need for compelling evidence of intent and overt acts beyond mere speech. They conclude that the implications of inaction could reinforce a dangerous precedent that presidents are above the law, advocating for careful consideration by the Justice Department in its course of action.
From October 28, 2022: There's been a lot of discussion about whether Donald Trump should be indicted. Lately, that discussion has focused on the documents the FBI seized from Mar-a-lago or the Jan. 6 committee's revelations about his efforts to overturn the 2020 election. But what about his speech on the ellipse on Jan. 6 when he told a crowd of thousands to “fight like hell,” and they went on to attack the Capitol? Isn't that incitement?
Lawfare executive editor Natalie Orpett sat down with Alan Rozenshtein, a senior editor at Lawfare and an associate professor at the University of Minnesota Law School, and Jed Shugerman, a professor at Fordham Law School. Alan and Jed explained the complicated First Amendment jurisprudence protecting political speech, even when it leads to violence, and why they believe that given everything we know now, Trump may in fact be criminally liable. They also reference Alan and Jed’s law review article in Constitutional Commentary, “January 6, Ambiguously Inciting Speech, and the Overt-Acts Solution.”