Lawfare Archive: Why the First Amendment Doesn’t Protect Trump’s Jan. 6 Speech
The Lawfare Podcast
The Lawfare Institute
4.7 • 6.4K Ratings
🗓️ 2 September 2024
⏱️ 47 minutes
🧾️ Download transcript
Summary
From October 28, 2022: There's been a lot of discussion about whether Donald Trump should be indicted. Lately, that discussion has focused on the documents the FBI seized from Mar-a-lago or the Jan. 6 committee's revelations about his efforts to overturn the 2020 election. But what about his speech on the ellipse on Jan. 6 when he told a crowd of thousands to “fight like hell,” and they went on to attack the Capitol? Isn't that incitement?
Lawfare executive editor Natalie Orpett sat down with Alan Rozenshtein, a senior editor at Lawfare and an associate professor at the University of Minnesota Law School, and Jed Shugerman, a professor at Fordham Law School. Alan and Jed explained the complicated First Amendment jurisprudence protecting political speech, even when it leads to violence, and why they believe that given everything we know now, Trump may in fact be criminally liable. They also reference Alan and Jed’s law review article in Constitutional Commentary, “January 6, Ambiguously Inciting Speech, and the Overt-Acts Solution.”
To receive ad-free podcasts, become a Lawfare Material Supporter at www.patreon.com/lawfare. You can also support Lawfare by making a one-time donation at https://givebutter.com/c/trumptrials.
Support this show http://supporter.acast.com/lawfare.
Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.
Transcript
Click on a timestamp to play from that location
| 0:00.0 | The following podcast contains advertising. |
| 0:04.0 | To access an ad-free version of the Lawfair Podcast, |
| 0:08.0 | become a material supporter of Lawfair at Patreon.com slash Lawfair. That's Patreon.com |
| 0:16.4 | slash Lawfair. Also check out Lawfair's other podcast offerings, rational security, chatter, lawfare no bull, and the aftermath. |
| 0:30.0 | At Vertex, we know the pace of global commerce is increasing, which makes managing tax more complex. |
| 0:38.0 | And your enterprise systems weren't built to handle that tax complexity. |
| 0:42.0 | This is where we come in with our platform |
| 0:44.8 | that enables continuous compliance, giving you more transparency, improved |
| 0:50.2 | accuracy, and better confidence in your tax data. |
| 0:53.6 | To learn more about continuous compliance, visit Vertex Inc. |
| 0:59.8 | you've stopped someone carrying a large amount of drugs. He's just a teenager. He's exhausted, |
| 1:06.7 | scared, not giving you his name, where he's from or where he's going. He's broken the law, but maybe he really needs your help. |
| 1:16.0 | So how'd you get him talking? |
| 1:18.0 | If you think you could be a regular or volunteer police constable, |
| 1:22.0 | such Met careers. Change needs empathy. Change |
| 1:27.0 | needs you. I'm Anna Hecky, associate editor of Communications at Law Fair with an episode from the Lawfare |
| 1:45.5 | for September 2nd, 2024. |
| 1:49.4 | Last week, former President Trump faced a superseding indictment in Special Counsel Jack Smith's January 6th investigation. |
| 1:55.3 | Smith filed the indictment in light of the Supreme Court's presidential immunity ruling, |
| 1:59.5 | which declared that official acts were immune for prosecution. |
| 2:03.2 | For today's archive episode, I picked an episode from October 28, 2022, in which Natalie |
| 2:08.5 | Orpitt sat down with Alan Rosenstein and Judge Sugarman to discuss the complicated First Amendment jurisprudence protecting |
... |
Please login to see the full transcript.
Disclaimer: The podcast and artwork embedded on this page are from The Lawfare Institute, and are the property of its owner and not affiliated with or endorsed by Tapesearch.
Generated transcripts are the property of The Lawfare Institute and are distributed freely under the Fair Use doctrine. Transcripts generated by Tapesearch are not guaranteed to be accurate.
Copyright © Tapesearch 2026.