In
what
may
be
the
most
accidentally
honest
moment
of
his
presidency,
Donald
Trump
just
admitted
what
we’ve
been
documenting
for
months:
“We
took
the
freedom
of
speech
away.”
Yes,
that’s
literally
what
he
said:
For
those
who’ve
been
following
Trump’s
systematic
assault
on
the
First
Amendment—which
we’ve
covered extensively at Techdirt—this
admission
is
remarkable
not
for
its
content,
but
for
its
candor.
Here’s
a
president
whose
supporters
claimed
he
would
“bring
free
speech
back”
explicitly
acknowledging
that
his
administration
has
done
the
opposite.
He
said
this
at
the
White
House’s
bizarre
roundtable
on
antifa,
which
involved
a
bunch
of
serial
fabulists
and
conspiracy
theorists
feeding
the
President’s
delusional
need
to
justify
using
the
military
on
American
citizens
who
live
in
states
that
didn’t
vote
enough
for
him.
If
you
can’t
see
the
video,
the
transcript
is
pretty
straightforward:
We
made
it
one
year
penalty
for
inciting
riots. We
took
the
freedom
of
speech
away because
that’s
been
through
the
courts
and
the
courts
said
you
have
freedom
of
speech,
but
what
has
happened
is
when
they
burn
a
flag
it
agitates
and
irritates
crowds.
I’ve
never
seen
anything
like
it
on
both
sides.
And
you
end
up
with
riots
so
we’re
going
on
that
basis.
We’re
looking
at
it
from
not
from
the
freedom
of
speech,
which
I
always
felt
strongly
about,
but
never
passed
the
courts.
This
is
what
they
do,
is
they
incite…
when
you
burn
an
American
flag,
you
incite
tremendous
violence.
We
have
many
examples
of
it.
Many,
many
examples
of
it.
And
it’s
actually
down
on
tape
and
you
see
things
happen
that
just
don’t
happen
unless
it’s
the
flag
that’s
burning.
Well,
thank
you
for
admitting
what
we
all
know
is
true.
Now,
of
course,
this
is
a
bit
of
typical
Trumpian
word
salad,
but
we
can
parse
what
he’s
trying
to
say
in
a
manner
that
likely
reveals
what
the
circle
of
suck-ups
around
him
have
been
telling
him
in
order
to
justify
their
deeply
censorial,
deeply
authoritarian
desires.
Back
in
August
he
signed
an
executive
order,
which
has
no
legal
basis
for
anything,
claiming
that
federal
prosecutors
should try to
figure
out
a
way
to
prosecute
people
for
burning
the
flag
by
arguing
that
it’s
incitement
to
imminent
violence.
This
is
because
there
is
a
widely
recognized
exception
to
the
First
Amendment
which
is
“incitement
to
imminent
lawless
action.”
The
theory,
such
as
it
is,
goes
like
this:
while
flag
burning
is
normally
protected
speech,
Trump’s
handlers
think
they
can
circumvent
that
protection
by
arguing
that
flag
burning
constitutes
incitement
to
imminent
lawless
action.
Normally
“incitement”
is
very,
very
limited
to
situations
where
someone
points
at
someone
else
and
tells
people
“go
kill
that
person”
or
something
of
that
nature.
It
has
to
be
clear,
directed,
and
involving
“imminent
lawless
action”
meaning
right
after
the
words
are
said.
Flag
burning
is
not
that.
And,
for
all
his
talk
about
“never
passed
the
courts,”
this
has
been
tested
in
the
courts
and
the
courts
have
been
pretty
clear:
burning
a
flag
is
almost
always
First
Amendment
protected
expression.
The
key
case
here
is Texas
v.
Johnson:
We
are
tempted
to
say,
in
fact,
that
the
flag’s
deservedly
cherished
place
in
our
community
will
be
strengthened,
not
weakened,
by
our
holding
today.
Our
decision
is
a
reaffirmation
of
the
principles
of
freedom
and
inclusiveness
that
the
flag
best
reflects,
and
of
the
conviction
that
our
toleration
of
criticism
such
as
Johnson’s
is
a
sign
and
source
of
our
strength.
Indeed,
one
of
the
proudest
images
of
our
flag,
the
one
immortalized
in
our
own
national
anthem,
is
of
the
bombardment
it
survived
at
Fort
McHenry.
It
is
the
Nation’s
resilience,
not
its
rigidity,
that
Texas
sees
reflected
in
the
flag
—
and
it
is
that
resilience
that
we
reassert
today.
The
way
to
preserve
the
flag’s
special
role
is
not
to
punish
those
who
feel
differently
about
these
matters.
It
is
to
persuade
them
that
they
are
wrong.
When
Trump
says
this
“never
passed
the
courts,”
he’s
not
just
wrong—he’s
demonstrating
a
fundamental
misunderstanding
of
how
Supreme
Court
precedent
works.
Texas
v.
Johnson
didn’t
fail
to
“pass”
the
courts;
it
established
that
flag
burning
is
constitutionally
protected
speech.
As
for
the
“one
year
penalty”
that
is
not
in
the
executive
order,
nor
is
it
something
a
President
could
determine
by
Executive
Order.
But
no
one
dares
tell
the
mad
king
he’s
got
no
idea
what
he’s
talking
about.
More
telling
than
Trump’s
legal
confusion
is
his
claim
to
possess
extensive
evidence
that
doesn’t
exist.
He
insists
they
have
“many,
many
examples”
of
flag
burning
inciting
violence
that
they
have
“down
on
tape.”
This
should
be
easy
to
verify—if
such
tape
existed.
If
journalists
cared
about
getting
this
right,
they
could
ask
him
any
number
of
questions,
starting
with
why
he’s
ignoring
Texas
v.
Johnson.
Or,
maybe,
since
he
claimed
they
have
“many,
many
examples”
of
flag
burning
inciting
violence,
that
they
have
“down
on
tape,”
someone
should
ask
him
to
provide
the
tapes.
Where
is
the
evidence
of
this?
He
says
they
have
so
much
of
it,
so
surely
they
can
show
it?
The
Brandenburg
standard
for
incitement
requires
speech
that
is
“directed
to
inciting
or
producing
imminent
lawless
action
and
is
likely
to
incite
or
produce
such
action.”
Flag
burning,
as
symbolic
political
speech,
simply
doesn’t
meet
this
test.
Not
even
close.
There
would
need
to
be
specific,
directed
calls
to
violence,
not
mere
symbolic
expression
that
some
find
offensive.
But
we
all
know
it’s
the
usual
nonsensical
ramblings
of
an
old
man
who
has
no
idea
what’s
actually
going
on,
and
who
is easily
fooled
by
fake
things they
put
on
Fox
News.
The
only
honest
and
accurate
thing
he
said
in
the
whole
thing
was
the
line
that
every
Democrat
should
use
in
their
political
ads:
“We
took
the
freedom
of
speech
away.”
Yes,
Donald,
you
sure
did.
And
you
continue
to
do
so.
Bring
this
up
every
day.
Make
the
quote
famous.
Make
sure
everyone
knows
what
Donald
Trump
is
admitting.
This
admission
fits
perfectly
into
Trump’s
broader
pattern
of
attacking
the
First
Amendment.
From threatening
to
sue
publishers to promising
to
imprison
protestors,
this
administration
has
consistently
treated
free
speech
as
an
obstacle
to
be
overcome
rather
than
a
principle
to
be
protected.
And
everyone
who
supported
him
on
the
false
belief
that
he
would
“bring
free
speech
back”
might
want
to
do
some
soul
searching
to
understand
why
you
bought
an
obvious
lie
from
an
obvious
fabulist.
Trump
Admits:
“We
Took
The
Freedom
Of
Speech
Away”
More
Law-Related
Stories
From
Techdirt:
America
Is
Now
The
World’s
Sundown
Town
Hey,
San
Francisco,
There
Should
Be
Consequences
When
Police
Spy
Illegally
Appeals
Court
Subtly
Lets
The
Trump
Administration
Know
It’s
Just
Being
Racist
By
Demanding
An
End
To
Birthright
Citizenship
Kathryn
