The American Civil Liberties Union wasn’t always the cancerous blight it is today. Years of corruption have slowly caused the organization to drift from its original purpose, which was to protect Constitutional rights such as freedom of speech.
The ACLU is sometimes productive, despite the transgenderism and race-baiting. It was in this case that the ACLU condemned the unconstitutional gag order placed on the former President during the “election interference prosecution”, which is pending in D.C.
The following is an excerpt from the “friend of the court” briefing of the ACLU. The usual talking points are used to describe how Trump’s statements “have been patently untrue” and have “caused great harm to individuals as well the Republic itself.” The ACLU would never defend constitutional rights for a deplorable without first voicing a scathing condemnation in order to calm liberal constituents’ fears.
The Court’s Order prohibited Defendant from “making any public statements or directing other people to make any public statements that target (1) the Special Counsel prosecuting a case or his staff; (2) defense counsel and staff; (3) the staff of this court or other support personnel; (4) a reasonably foreseeable witness or the substance or testimonies of their testimony.” The interpretation of “target” is crucial to the order. This meaning, however, is ambiguous, and it does not provide the fair warning required by law, especially when there has been a restriction of speech.
The vagueness doctrine, rooted in due process, ordinarily applies to legislatures, requiring that statutes provide “fair notice or warning” of what is prohibited by penal laws. Smith v. Goguen, 415 U.S. 566, 572 (1974). But it also applies to court orders that carry with them the threat of punishment. See, e.g., Int’l Longshoremen’s Ass’n, Loc. 1291 v. Phila. Marine Trade Ass’n, 389 U.S. 64, 76 (1967); Schmidt v. Lessard, 414 U.S. 473, 476 (1974); English v. Cunningham, 269 F.2d 517, 524–25 (D.C. Cir. 1959). Fairness demands that the law, and judicial edicts, avoid laying “trap[s]” for “the innocent,” and instead “give the person of ordinary intelligence a reasonable opportunity to know what is prohibited, so that he may act accordingly.” Grayned v. City of Rockford, 408 U.S. 104, 108 (1972); see also Connally v. General Construction Co., 269 U.S. 385, 391 (1926).
The Court’s use of the term “target” is unconstitutional and too broad. Trump’s freedom of speech is restricted.