Here's one hell of a
WTF?! legal argument from the Trump administration.
In the Appeals Court case which was just decided (10-3) to uphold the lower court's decision to block Trump's travel ban from majority Muslim nations, this is an argument advanced by the WH
Quote:The administration had argued that consideration of campaign rhetoric would chill political speech protected by the First Amendment.
Get that? If a court considers what a candidate says (and says even multiple times) during his campaign, then this acts as a chill on free speech.
So, for example, if a candidate says, multiple times, that the negro and the Jew are terrible, evil, degraded people and that none should be allowed to enter the country (or, perhaps, to vote) then no court can justifiably consider those statements in any relevant future case because that candidates right to speak freely is jeopardized.
And how much of a step is it to then hold that reporters quoting or archiving such statements of a candidate and publishing them are also jeopardizing that candidates right to speak freely?
Quote:That was not a problem, Judge Gregory said.
“To the extent that our review chills campaign promises to condemn and exclude entire religious groups, we think that a welcome restraint,” he wrote.
NYT
Just how fucked up is the modern right in the US? Really fucked up.