• Darkassassin07@lemmy.ca
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      13
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      10 months ago

      Trumps lawyers convinced a different judge it was unconstitutional.

      Had to appeal that decision.

      • dhork@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        21
        ·
        10 months ago

        No, not quite. Trump’s lawyers appealed it, and the judge who initially reviewed the appeal simply suspended the order while the appeal was in progress. Now that the appeal has been denied, the order goes back into place.

        • perviouslyiner@lemm.ee
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          5
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          edit-2
          10 months ago

          That seems like a dangerous precedent? Like if someone at trial had a protective order not to go beat the cr*p out of a witness… They could simply appeal the order, do the deed, and then once the order is reinstated it’s now moot because they’ve already done it?!

          • Echinoderm@aussie.zone
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            5
            arrow-down
            4
            ·
            10 months ago

            That’s not comparing the same thing. Beating the crap out of someone is inherently illegal, free speech is not.

            • Mouselemming@sh.itjust.works
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              6
              ·
              10 months ago

              True, but in this case his free speech is known to have inflamed his cult followers to commit acts of violence in his name, so it’s a closer comparison than it appears on the surface. Court personnel are already receiving death threats.

              • Echinoderm@aussie.zone
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                4
                arrow-down
                1
                ·
                10 months ago

                Oh, he absolutely should be told to shut his mouth.

                The point is the courts have to be a lot more careful about circumscribing a right that has quite strong existing protections versus something that does not.

            • Viking_Hippie@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              2
              arrow-down
              2
              ·
              10 months ago

              Slander and libel are inherently illegal, being confidently wrong on the internet is not. Lucky you.