Constitutional lawyers call TFG's First Amendment defense against Jan. 6 lawsuits 'spurious'
Former president Donald Trumps claim that the First Amendment shields his conduct leading up to the Jan. 6 Capitol riot is legally spurious and should be rejected as a federal court considers lawsuits that allege he incited the violence, four prominent First Amendment lawyers and scholars argued Thursday.
Targeting a key defense raised by lawyers for Trump and co-defendants including Rudolph W. Giuliani and Rep. Mo Brooks (R-Ala.), the legal experts said that courts have long recognized that speech central to a crime such as the political intimidation of voters, lawmakers and government officials is barred and not protected by the Constitution.
In a 23-page proposed friend-of-the-court brief filed Thursday in a case brought by members of Congress and Capitol police, the legal scholars argued that courts must strike a balance between protecting freedom of political speech and preventing political intimidation.
Granting constitutional protection to the statutorily proscribed acts of political intimidation in the guise of speech would render the government incapable of carrying out its functions, including its core democratic function of protecting the ability of all eligible citizens to engage freely and without coercion in the democratic process, whether by voting or by supporting and advocating for candidates, the scholars wrote.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/local/legal-issues/first-amendment-defense-trump-lawsuit/2021/07/09/caadc64c-e038-11eb-9f54-7eee10b5fcd2_story.html