OPINION:
Watch what you say, conservatives. A federal judge in Kentucky has ruled that President Donald Trump may indeed have incited violence with his words during a campaign rally back in March 2016, and that plaintiffs hurt by his supporters may indeed go ahead and sue.
What an eye-opener. This could prove a massive First Amendment case — one that could change the shape of how America regards freedom of speech, and what’s OK, what’s not, at least for conservatives.
Hurtful speech — i.e. rhetoric from conservative mouths that fall on liberal ears — may fall under the Not OK category.
What happened in March 2016 was this: Trump was giving a speech in Louisville when three protesters started to do what they do — shout and and scream and interrupt. So Trump, from his podium, stopped his scheduled remarks to say, “Oh we have another wiseguy. OK. Get him the hell out.”
The video clearly shows a man in a suit — ostensibly working security for the Trump campaign — trying to escorting the protesters through the packed crowd. At one point from the podium, Trump even said, “Don’t hurt ’em.”
The three protesters — two men and a woman — said they were roughed up by Trump supporters, as they were being escorted through the crowds and from the scene. And it was this purposeful shoving and punching they claim happened — which is all alleged, by the way — that they also claim is Trump’s fault.
Their view? Trump said to “get ’em out of here” repeatedly from his podium, and in doing so, he incited the violence.
So they did what any disgruntled leftist does — they sued. And they didn’t sue the people who supposedly roughed them up. They sued Trump.
They argued in court through their attorney that Trump’s rhetoric was tantamount to a call for violence. Trump’s attorneys, citing the First Amendment, tried to get the case booted. But the judge? He sided with the plaintiffs.
“It is plausible that Trump’s direction to ’get ’em out of here’ advocated the use of force,” wrote Judge David Hale. “It was an order, an instruction, a command.”
This is ridiculous. No, David Hale, it isn’t plausible.
Was Trump the commanding officer and the crowd a company of soldiers, sworn to obey?
But the bigger argument is this: If the plaintiff’s case is “plausible,” as Hale said, then Trump himself has a case. And a better one. Trump’s rhetoric was in response to the trio’s rhetoric. So if the line of logic is that speech can incite violence, wouldn’t it be the protesters’ speech that should be brought to trial?
Trump should be suing the protesters for causing a violent scene — for shouting offensively in the middle of his speech and bringing about a violent situation.
Not the other way around.
But this suit should’ve been tossed, as Trump’s attorneys argued. The First Amendment is not a tool for leftist protesters to bend to their will — to cite when it benefits them and disregard when it comes to tolerating those with different political views.
Neither is it a tool for aggressive and activist judges to carry out legal attacks on a president seen as offensive to the snowflake mindset. This judge is just the latest in a line to hold Trump’s speech to a standard that goes beyond what the Constitution allows — that looks at off-the-cuff statements, or campaign promises, or in-the-heat-of-the-moment responses and reactions, and considers their deeper intents, their hidden meanings. This is what federal judges have been doing with Trump’s travel orders. This is what Hale’s doing with this bogus suit.
The left ought to think of the long-term ramifications of stifling someone’s speech. In the meantime, though, Trump’s attorneys ought to launch a countersuit against these three protesters, decrying their hate speech and calls to violence. Maybe the right can play that game, too.
Please read our comment policy before commenting.