Roger Stone files petition contesting social media gag order

Former Trump campaign adviser Roger Stone submitted a petition Friday hoping to contest a court-imposed gag order preventing any use of social media while he awaits trial for charges of obstructing justice.

Mr. Stone’s attorneys filed the petition with the D.C. Court of Appeals, saying U.S. District Judge Amy Berman Jackson has violated Mr. Stone’s and his associates’ constitutional right to free speech with the gag order.

“The prohibitions on Roger Stone are a prior restraint of his First Amendment rights. The prohibitions on his family members constitute a chilling effect on the exercise of their First Amendment rights,” the motion states.

Judge Jackson originally put a gag order on Mr. Stone in February for posting an image of her near crosshairs, banning him from making any public comments on his case or any part of then-special counsel Robert Mueller’s Russia investigation.

She said his repeated violations made it seem that “he’s determined to make himself the subject of the story” and warned that continued violations would lead to a harsher punishments, according to Politico

Despite this, Mr. Stone commented on topics regarding Mr. Mueller’s investigation on multiple occasions.

In one such example, Mr. Stone told BuzzFeed News that Mr. Trump’s former personal lawyer and fixer Michael Cohen’s February House testimony was “not true.” On Instagram, Mr. Stone asked “Who Framed Roger Stone,” applying he was set up, and two others posts insulting House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence Chairman Adam B. Schiff with the captions “Bullschiff” and “if it’s Schiff Flush it.”

This led to Judge Jackson putting a full social media ban on Mr. Stone, which his attorneys contest is an unconstitutional move that has “no compelling interest.” 

“Like all court orders that actually forbid speech activities, gag orders are prior restraints,” Mr. Stone’s attorney wrote. “In addition, the gag orders are content based — limiting the topics open for discussion and ideas or messages which can be expressed — creating another presumption of unconstitutionality.”