Even the Washington Post admits Jack Smith was wrong on free speech
Special counsel’s testimony contradicts Supreme Court precedent on protected political speech, constitutional experts argueFor years, some of us have argued that President Donald Trump’s January 6th speech was protected under the First Amendment and that any prosecution would collapse under governing precedent, including Brandenburg v. Ohio. I was regularly attacked as an apologist for my criticism of Special Counsel Jack Smith’s “war on free speech.” I wrote about his history of ignoring such constitutional protections in his efforts to prosecute targets at any cost. I also wrote about how Smith’s second indictment (which the Post supported) was a direct assault.
