This spring, a U.S. district judge ruled that three protesters who attended a Donald Trump campaign rally in Louisville, Ky., in March of 2016 could move ahead with a lawsuit against Trump and three supporters who attacked them. While Judge David Hale ruled out the idea that the supporters were agents of the campaign, he did consider it plausible that Trump incited a riot by saying, “Get ’em out of here.”
Ken Vogel of the New York Times noted Wednesday that although the judge wrote that the words weren’t “objectively violent,” they could be considered incitement, depending on the context.
Judge in Trump rally violence case warns Trump that his calls to supporters to remove protesters could be considered incitement to violence. pic.twitter.com/WNDuiYjZAZ
— Kenneth P. Vogel (@kenvogel) August 9, 2017
But judge also allows Trump to appeal to block discovery, noting "the unique sensitivities involved where @POTUS is a party to litigation." pic.twitter.com/e0Tp2PtDJs
— Kenneth P. Vogel (@kenvogel) August 9, 2017
Jason Riley of WDRB reported further on the judge’s action in the rally case, noting that the judge had decided to reconsider Trump’s argument that his speech was protected by the First Amendment, putting the case on hold:
A federal judge has agreed to reconsider his decision from March in which he rejected President Donald Trump’s argument that he had a First Amendment right to order protesters thrown out of a rally in Louisville during a campaign stop in March 2016.
U.S. District Court Judge David J. Hale on Wednesday amended his March 31 order that allowed a lawsuit accusing Trump of inciting violence to move forward. He ordered the case put on hold while the free speech question is decided.
NEW: Federal judge agrees to reconsider @realDonaldTrump First Amendment argument in Louisville protest lawsuithttps://t.co/r1LhbH4Z7K
— Jason Riley (@JasonRileyWDRB) August 9, 2017
Federal Judge David Hale has put the Louisville protester lawsuit against @realDonaldTrump on hold until 1st Amendment question resolved pic.twitter.com/memOSw2Lt6
— Jason Riley (@JasonRileyWDRB) August 9, 2017
Judge said @realDonaldTrump and attnys have "registered their displeasure (of his March ruling) in a variety of increasingly impatient ways"
— Jason Riley (@JasonRileyWDRB) August 9, 2017
Including "sending a letter from counsel urging the court to expedite its decision" and appealing to U.S. Court of Appeals for 6th circuit
— Jason Riley (@JasonRileyWDRB) August 9, 2017
Judge Hale also dismissed a negligence claim against @realDonaldTrump, reversing a prior ruling that allowed that claim to go forward
— Jason Riley (@JasonRileyWDRB) August 9, 2017
So the incitement claim is the only one left.
— Jason Riley (@JasonRileyWDRB) August 9, 2017
While judge is reconsidering ruling, he indicated he still felt @realDonaldTrump's speech was incitement, when taken in context
— Jason Riley (@JasonRileyWDRB) August 9, 2017
As @realDonaldTrump attorneys have argued, Trump did not tell anyone directly to do anything violence or break any laws. But …
— Jason Riley (@JasonRileyWDRB) August 9, 2017
Hale said "context matters." Given his surroundings the "mere absence of overtly violent language in Trump's statement" is not fatal to case
— Jason Riley (@JasonRileyWDRB) August 9, 2017
As an example of context, the judge offered that the exclamation “Shoot!” might or might not constitute incitement, depending on if it were “directed to a crowd of armed angry individuals” or “shouted by a basketball fan in disappointment.”
Ridiculousness
— s.d.m. (@iwrotegudomelet) August 9, 2017
