[View here as a Twitter thread]
1/ The National Park Service proposed a rule limiting protest in D.C. regulations.gov/document?D=NPS… They want to impose fees and limit where protesters can march, including restricting public areas outside the White House.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/local/activists-launch-full-court-press-against-new-park-service-rules-that-would-charge-fees-to-demonstrate/2018/10/12/deed78f8-ce36-11e8-a360-85875bac0b1f_story.html?utm_term=.8ecdaf923b41
2/Now, in court papers, Trump also argues that disseminating stolen emails (from the DNC hack) was protected by the First Amendment. Sounds crazy, right? It is. First, a legal primer. The First Amendment begins with: “Congress shall make no law . . .”
3/ Thus it literally applies only to Congress, but SCOTUS held that it applies to any government action. law.cornell.edu/constitution/f… The reason: to protect citizens from governmental tyranny. (Not, as Trump would have it, to protect the president from anything he doesn’t like)
4/ This means—for example—that Parkland Students calling for a boycott of Laura Ingraham’s show did not infringe on Ingraham’s freedom of speech, because the students are not the government.
https://abcnews.go.com/Politics/laura-ingraham-returns-boycott-liberals-cutting-off-free/story?id=54355841
5/ On the other hand, the First Amendment was specifically intended to protect citizens protesting against public officials—which makes the National Park Service proposed regulations a violation of the First Amendment. regulations.gov/document?D=NPS…
6/ Courts have never held that First Amendment protection means you can say anything you want. You can’t shout “fire” in a crowded building, or say something that will endanger someone else, or deliberately spread lies about people, etc.
7/ So—for example—when Alex Jones defends his lies (like when he said the Sandy Hook parents faked the deaths of their children) by saying that his speech is protected by the First Amendment, he’s just wrong.
8/ Brings us to Cockrum v. Trump Three people who were victimized by the hacking of the DNC and release of their private information sued Trump (and Stone) for damages. More here: lawreview.syr.edu/case-study-roy…
9/ Their claim: Trump & pals conspired to deprive them of privacy rights by publishing private information for which the public has no legitimate concern. Stolen information published by Wikileaks included their SS# and other private and sensitive personal information.
10/ More here: justsecurity.org/43077/dnc-hack… justsecurity.org/wp-content/upl… Last week, Trump (through his lawyers) filed a motion to dismiss the case based on (among other things) a First Amendment argument:
11/ Trump (through lawyers) argued that the First Amendment protected the disclosure of the DNC emails, even though they were stolen, because in the aggregate, the DNC emails were of public interest.
https://www.documentcloud.org/documents/4999941-23-Campaign-MTD-Brief.html
12/ The stuff of “public interest” included emails about how some Dems didn’t like Bernie. The public interest? Well, it made the DNC look bad. One way to read his arguments: Hacking, stealing & publishing private emails are OK if the info helps Trump politically.
13/ The case also hinges on whether the Trump campaign worked with the Russians to release the information—but Trump is trying to get the case dismissed now on a claim that the public has a right to private campaign emails. It’s alarming that he’s even making this argument.
14/ Trump has a history of distorting and weaponizing the first Amendment, as when he accused Stormy Daniels of infringing HIS First Amendment rights. twitter.com/Teri_Kanefield… This is all part of a larger pattern of flooding the zone with nonstop attacks on the law and truth.
15/ As if he thinks if he keeps battering, eventually the law will crumble. What do I mean by endless crisis and spectacle? See twitter.com/Teri_Kanefield… (I know others, like Naomi Klein, have written about Trump’s shock methods—but I prefer Snyder’s framing of the problem.)
