[Home]  [Headlines]  [Latest Articles]  [Latest Comments]  [Post]  [Mail]  [Sign-in]  [Setup]  [Help]  [Register] 

If Cannabis Can Kill "Incurable" Brain Cancer, Why Is It Criminalized?

Karma’s a B---h

Teenage Sisters Legally Recorded Police, Who Tackled Them to the Ground

Bizarre Clouds of Aluminum-Coated Material Appear on Radar Across the US

Trump Inauguration Spending Under Criminal Investigation by Federal Prosecutors

Why Christians Should Embrace Free Markets, With Guest Fr. Robert Sirico

Russian spy Maria Butina pleads guilty to engaging in conspiracy against US

Trump cancels White House Christmas party for the press

SKEWERED ALIVE Factory robot impales worker with 10 foot-long steel spikes after horror malfunction

Indiana Police Chief Promoting As Many Bad Cops As He Can To Supervisory Positions

MEET THE BOARD OF THE FUSION GPS-LINKED GROUP INVESTIGATING TRUMP

Richard Painter Says There’s Only 1 Way Out For Trump Now

78-Year-Old Man in Wheelchair Evicted to Freezing Streets for Treating Pain With Legal Medical Pot

As Gov’t Failed to Provide, Anarchists Stepped in to Help Fire Refugees Living in a Walmart Parking Lot

NJ State Police to launch Nazi-style door-to-door gun magazine confiscation campaign… at gunpoint, of course… NJ declares WAR on its own residents

U.S. Steel Stock Has Dropped 57 Percent Since Trump's Tariffs Were Announced

Stoneman Douglas report calls on the sheriff's office to investigate SEVEN deputies who 'failed to confront Nikolas Cruz during the horrific mass school shooting'

Catholic Couple and St.Pete

IT MAY BE TIME TO QUIT THINKING!

Parents of pregnant woman shot in Ofra attack: ‘She opened her eyes and cried’

Google CEO Had To Explain To Congress Why Googling ‘Idiot’ Shows Donald Trump

PELOSI, SCHUMER PLEAD TO TRUMP: ‘LET’S DEBATE’ BORDER FUNDS ‘IN PRIVATE’ Pelosi said they did not come to debate border funding ‘in public view’

'Terror' at Christmas market: 'Islamist' who shot dead three people and wounded 13 in Strasbourg had been identified as 'a threat to the state' it is revealed as manhunt continues

Police use facial recognition doorbells to create private watchlist networks

To a Nation of Snowflakes, Christmas Has Become Another Trigger Word

George H. W. Bush Met With The Bin Laden Family On The Morning of 9/11

Maryland Man Saves a Life, Says D.C. Cops Rewarded Him by Seizing His Car Benjamin Davis III wasn't issued a ticket or citation.

Vermont Man Barred From Building on His Own Property Flips Off Government With Giant Middle Finger Statue

Vatican No. 3 Cardinal George Pell Convicted on Charges He Sexually Abused Choir Boys

Belize Documentary

Archeologists: Sodom and Gomorrah literally destroyed by fire and brimstone falling from the sky

Welcome to Trump Budget Management : A Week After Decrying a $716 Billion Defense Budget, Trump Agrees to $750 Billion Defense Budget

CVS Employee Stops Robbery, Gets Fired

Pope Francis Implementing Change Of Lord’s Prayer: ‘Lead Us Not Into Temptation’

John Kelly Was President Trump's Top Authoritarian Fearmonger. Good Riddance.

Kavanaugh Joins Liberals To Protect Pro-Planned Parenthood Ruling

Lena Dunham lied to discredit an alleged rape victim and then wrote her worst apology yet

Don’t Be Fooled: Ocasio-Cortez Is A Very Real Threat

The Motor Law (Red Barchetta)

Nebraska principal reportedly bans candy canes, says ‘J shape’ stands for Jesus

Name One Government Agency That Doesn’t Do The Exact Opposite Of Its Purpose

Media Attacks Heisman Trophy Winner Kyler Murray for Homophobic Tweets He Sent As a 14-Year-Old

Kansas recalls hundreds of license plates over ethnic slur complaint (JAP)

Adolescent Pot Use in Post-Legalization Colorado and Washington Is Still Failing to Rise

The Irony of a Congressman's Proposal to Exempt Police from His “Assault Weapons” Ban

The Speeding Exemption (Some Animals are More Equal than Others)

Hugh Freeze: "[Jesus Christ] Is The Only One I've Ever Met Who Can Handle My Junk"

FranceÂ’s 2018 peace prize goes to jihad terrorists and haters of Israe

Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez: Central Americans Treated Like Jews Fleeing The Nazis

'SMASH AND KILL' Paris in lockdown with tear gas fired as 5,000 protesters descend for ‘Day of Rage’


Status: Not Logged In; Sign In

U.S. Constitution
See other U.S. Constitution Articles

Title: President Trump and the Freedom of Speech
Source: Lew Rockwell
URL Source: https://www.lewrockwell.com/2018/03 ... ump-and-the-freedom-of-speech/
Published: Mar 15, 2018
Author: Andrew P. Napolitano
Post Date: 2018-03-15 09:15:24 by Deckard
Keywords: None
Views: 38

When James Madison drafted the First Amendment — “Congress shall make no law … abridging the freedom of speech” — he made sure to use the article “the” in front of the word “freedom.” What seemed normal to him and superfluous to moderns was actually a profound signal that has resonated for 227 years. The signal was that because the freedom of speech existed before the government that was formed to protect it came into existence, it does not have its origins in government.

The freedom of speech has its origins in our humanity. It is a natural right. It exists in the absence of government. By the exercise of normal human reasoning, all rational people are drawn to exercise this freedom. Madison understood this. He could have written, “Congress shall grant freedom of speech.” He did not because that freedom is not Congress’ to grant or to abridge.

I am presenting this thumbnail sketch of the historical and philosophical underpinnings of the freedom of speech by way of background to a hot dispute now raging off the front pages. The dispute addresses whether the president of the United States can use federal courts to block the exercise of this right. CBS News wants to air an interview with an adult-film actress who alleges a sexual relationship with Donald Trump — a relationship he denies — and President Trump wants to prevent the airing.

The actress, whose stage name is Stormy Daniels, signed an agreement in October 2016 to accept $130,000 in return for remaining silent about her alleged sexual relationship with Trump, which she claims occurred shortly after the birth of his son Barron, who is now almost 12. The lawyer who negotiated the agreement with Daniels’ lawyer claimed that he was doing this on his own, that the hush money came from him and not Trump, and that Trump was not his client.

That claim raises profound campaign finance issues, but they are not the point of this piece. The point of this piece is about the freedom of speech.

Daniels, whose present lawyers have sued to invalidate the agreement, recently gave an interview about her relationship with Trump to the CBS News program “60 Minutes.” CBS plans to air that interview in the coming weeks, and Trump wants to prevent that from happening. The stated legal basis for Trump’s lawyers asking a court to block the broadcast is the existence of the hush agreement, which, in plain words, bars Daniels from discussing anything about her alleged sexual relationship with Trump. Obviously, Trump does not want any allegations from Daniels — true or false — to become a topic of public conversation and a distraction to his presidency.

Can the president legally persuade a federal court to enjoin the airing of an interview? In a word: no. Here is the back story.

In 1931, in a famous case called Near v. Minnesota, the Supreme Court generally rejected the concept of “prior restraint.” Prior restraint is the use of the courts to prevent the media from disseminating materials they already have. The Near case dealt with an anti-Catholic, anti-Semitic, anti-African-American newspaper that Minnesota state courts had silenced. The Supreme Court overruled the state courts and held that the freedom of speech presumes that individuals will decide for themselves what to read and hear and the First Amendment keeps the government — which here includes the courts — from censoring the marketplace of ideas, even hateful ideas.

Forty years later, in the Pentagon Papers case, the Supreme Court made a similar ruling. There, Daniel Ellsberg, an employee of a contractor to the Department of Defense, stole highly classified documents that demonstrated that then-President Lyndon B. Johnson and his generals had knowingly deceived the American public about the war in Vietnam.

When Ellsberg gave the documents to The New York Times and The Washington Post, the Nixon administration hurriedly persuaded a federal judge in New York to enjoin the Times from publishing the documents. Before a federal judge in Washington could rule on a similar request — and bypassing the intermediate appellate courts — the Supreme Court took the case and ruled in favor of the freedom of speech and reinforced the judicial condemnation of prior restraint.

But the Pentagon Papers ruling went a step further than the Near opinion had. It ruled that no matter how a media outlet has acquired matters material to the public interest — even by theft of top-secret documents — the outlet is free to publish them. This, of course, does not absolve the thief (though the case against Ellsberg was dismissed because of FBI misconduct), but it makes clear that no court can block the media from revealing what they reasonably believe the public wants to hear.

Now back to the president and the adult-film star. Because whatever Daniels said to CBS arguably speaks to Trump’s fitness for office, individuals have the right to learn of it, to hear Trump’s denials and to form their own opinions. In Trump’s case, he has a bigger megaphone than CBS does — via his adroit use of social media — and the volume and ferocity of his denials might carry the day.

But the point here is that individuals can make up their own minds about the president’s character; they don’t have to endure the prior restraint of a court’s silencing a voice in the debate, even a tawdry voice.

What if the hush money agreement Daniels signed — and the president did not — is valid? Could that trigger prior restraint? In a word: no. The Madisonian values underpinning the freedom of speech, as articulated consistently by the Supreme Court, will prevail. Anything short of that would prefer government censorship over personal choices in matters of speech, a preference the First Amendment profoundly rejects.

Post Comment   Private Reply   Ignore Thread  


[Home]  [Headlines]  [Latest Articles]  [Latest Comments]  [Post]  [Mail]  [Sign-in]  [Setup]  [Help]  [Register] 

Please report web page problems, questions and comments to webmaster@libertysflame.com