Yes, I can. The author of this article described the charges against these people as an "unprecedented attack on the First Amendment." Whether or not they should be charged with the additional crime is something we can all argue about. However, there is no way in hell that a situation in which the defendents have pleaded guilty to a crime can possibly be construed as a First Amendment issue.
If anything, this is a potential case of "double jeopardy," which would make it a Fifth Amendment issue, not a First Amendment issue. But then I guess that is why the author of this article is a third-rate writer for a second-rate newspaper, and not a leading constitutional scholar.
It should also be noted that this same "double jeopardy" argument would apply in "hate crimes" cases, pro-life protesters, etc. But I am quite certain that this guy has no problem when Federal prosecutors abuse their power in cases like that.
I agree that the case against the Greenpeace people has no standing is probably unconstitutional. However, I also believe that this case should be pursued with all of the AG's resources. The problem with illicit conduct on the part of one or more branches of the Federal government is that it never gets corrected until a left-wing person or organization is the target.
If anything, this is a potential case of "double jeopardy," which would make it a Fifth Amendment issue, not a First Amendment issue.
Of course it isn’t. He is not charging the protestors with additional crimes. He is charging the organization with crimes, with the intent to stifle their right to protest.
But then I guess that is why the author of this article is a third-rate writer for a second-rate newspaper, and not a leading constitutional scholar.
Jonathan Turley is a constitutional scholar who is syndicated in newspapers across the country, including conservative outfits such as JWR.
It should also be noted that this same "double jeopardy" argument would apply in "hate crimes" cases, pro-life protesters, etc. But I am quite certain that this guy has no problem when Federal prosecutors abuse their power in cases like that.
Wrong again.
Pro-Choice at Expense of Free Speech; NOW case against abortion protester may backfire
In 1986, two alleged racketeers were hauled into federal courts in New York and Chicago. One was John Gotti, the head of the murderous Gambino crime family. The other was Joseph Scheidler, a former Benedictine monk and pro-life protester. Only one was found liable as a racketeer: the former monk. Scheidler was found guilty under the civil provisions of the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act, a law designed to combat organized crime. It is a case that could radically alter the exercise of free speech in this country in a way that the framers could never have anticipated.