The trial of the 45th President begins tomorrow and the Trump legal team has put out a spirited, sometimes fiery, but well-reasoned defense. One matter that they vigorously push back on is the House’s assertion that a government official, in this case the President, is not afforded the same First Amendment protections of ordinary citizens. I call this the Goldfinger Exception after the famous scene in the classic Bond film. And just like in that film, a Mr. Bond saves the day! The House Managers say:
“Most fundamentally, the First Amendment protects private citizens from the government; it does not protect government officials from accountability for their own abuses in office…Regardless, even if the First Amendment were applicable here, private citizens and government officials stand on very different footing when it comes to being held responsible for their statements.”
This is a breathtaking assertion. It is also directly contradicted by Supreme Court precedent, which the defense brilliantly points out. Indeed, Trump’s lawyers note that the House doesn’t even bother to quote court opinions — they instead rely on blog posts to back this mangling of our most cherished freedom. One of the relevant cases is Bond v. Floyd, which involved the GA state legislature voting to prohibit the seating of Julian Bond because he spoke out against the war in Vietnam. Bond sued in federal court, and won. As the Trump legal team explains:
“When the state argued ‘that even though such a citizen [Bond, elected to GA’s House] might be protected by his First Amendment rights, the State may nonetheless apply a stricter standard to its legislators[,]’ the Supreme Court responded tersely, ‘We do not agree[,]'”
And citing the landmark New York Times v. Sullivan case, Justice Brennan (of all people) went on to conclude:
“The manifest function of the First Amendment in a representative government requires that legislators be given the widest latitude toexpress their views on issues of policy. The central commitment of the First Amendment…is that ‘debate on public issues should be uninhibited, robust, and wide-open.’”
So there we have it. Bond, Julian Bond, shows us just how the House’s assertions are “malarkey.”
