Even the Washington Post admits Jack Smith was wrong on free speech

Fox News ^ | anuary 10, 2026 10:07am EST | Jonathan Turley

[E. Pluribus Unum]

Special counsel's testimony contradicts Supreme Court precedent on protected political speech, constitutional experts argue

For years, some of us have argued that President Donald Trump's January 6th speech was protected under the First Amendment and that any prosecution would collapse under governing precedent, including Brandenburg v. Ohio.  I was regularly attacked as an apologist for my criticism of Special Counsel Jack Smith's "war on free speech." I wrote about his history of ignoring such constitutional protections in his efforts to prosecute targets at any cost. I also wrote about how Smith's second indictment (which the Post supported) was a direct assault on the First Amendment. Now, years later, the Washington Post has acknowledged that Trump's speech was protected and that Smith "would have blown a hole in the First Amendment."

In this appearance before Congress, Smith's contempt for the First Amendment was on full display. During his testimony, he was asked by Chairman Jim Jordan (R-Ohio) whether Trump was entitled to First Amendment protections for his speech.

Smith replied: "Absolutely not. If they are made to target a lawful government function and they are made with knowing falsity, no, they are not. That was my point about fraud not being protected by the First Amendment."

The comment is entirely and shockingly wrong. Smith shows a complete lack of understanding of the First Amendment and Supreme Court precedent.

JACK SMITH DENIES POLITICS PLAYED ANY ROLE IN TRUMP PROSECUTIONS AT HOUSE HEARING

First, the Supreme Court has held that knowingly false statements are protected under the First Amendment.

BILL MAHER URGES AMERICANS TO UNCONDITIONALLY SUPPORT FREE...

---

TOPICS: Crime/Corruption; Government; Politics/Elections
KEYWORDS: corruptdemocrats; democratlawfare; jacksmith; jonathanturley; washingtoncompost; washingtonpost

[Bruce Campbells Chin]

I think Trump’s speech was dumb, but it also was protected by the First Amendment and he never should have been prosecuted for it.

[MrRelevant]

His speech was fine - nothing incendiary.

The police are the ones who turned peaceful folks into “angry protesters”.

[E. Pluribus Unum]

The police are the ones who turned peaceful folks into “angry protesters”.

It was peaceful until the cops started lobbing stun grenades and rubber bullets into the crowd.

https://www.google.com/search?client=firefox-b-1-lm&q=j6+stun+grenade+video

[Bruce Campbells Chin]

I didn't pay much attention to the whole thing when it happened, but I did later read the entire text of the speech because I was curious to see for myself what he actually said as opposed to how different people characterized it.

The actual riot started before he finished, so I suspect the speech wasn't the cause. But I was surprised at how incendiary it actually was. "Our country is going to be lost if we don't stop this" kind of thing. He promised multiple times to march at the head of the column to the Capitol after the speech, to personally lead the column of attendees in the march to the Capitol, which of course he didn't do.

Saying that and then not doing it is one of the reasons I said it was stupid. That, and it was needlessly inflammatory, and therefore gave a bunch of ammunition to his enemies. So not illegal, and no cause to be prosecuted. Just...dumb. because it did nothing to help him. Or anyone on his side. It just backfired.

[cpdiii]

The comment is entirely and shockingly wrong. Smith shows a complete lack of understanding of the First Amendment and Supreme Court precedent.

On this Johnathan Turley is being magnanimously wrong. Jack Smith is a Harvard Law graduate and knows exactly what the first amendment means. He is a politicized judicial activist that willing violates the law to achieve a political objective. He is the law breaker, not Trump. Turley is to nice to say what he knows Jack Smith is.

I am a pharmacist, now retired. We are held in esteem in our community and deservedly so. Here in Texas if we have a "bad pharmacist" that normally involves his own addiction our board of pharmacy will take away his license and offer help for his addiction. If successful he will get his license back but must work under the supervision of another pharmacist for a considerable length of time. This is good policy. If the "bad pharmacist" is dealing, Texas will take his license and negate it. He will never be a pharmacist again in Texas. My point is the first person to turn in a bad pharmacist is probably another pharmacist. We do not want this in our profession. WHERE IN THE HELL ARE JUDICIAL LAWYERS TURNING IN THERE CORRUPT JUDICIAL COLLEAGUES?