Overview
- Testifying to House lawmakers, Jack Smith said statements made with knowing falsity to target a lawful government function are not protected by the First Amendment.
- The Washington Post Editorial Board argued that election-related speech is strongly protected and that public scrutiny, not prosecution, is the primary check on political misdirection.
- Jonathan Turley countered that Supreme Court precedents such as United States v. Alvarez, Snyder v. Phelps, and Brandenburg v. Ohio protect even false or provocative political speech.
- Smith said he makes no apologies for seeking a gag order during the case, while an appeals court later narrowed the 2023 order to better align with First Amendment limits.
- After President Trump won the 2024 election, Smith withdrew the prosecution, leaving the fight over false political speech to legislative hearings and media debate.