Diddy’s lawyers use Trump case to protect his freedom of speech

He The latest dispute between Sean “Diddy” Combs and federal prosecutors amid his sex crimes case stems from an allegation that the feds are trying to silence the rapper in violation of his free speech protections. You will never believe whose case they used to support their argument.

federal prosecutors continued to argue against Combs’ bail request in a letter to the court filed Monday. They claimed that while on remand at the Brooklyn Metropolitan Detention Center, Combs had used multiple unauthorized means of communication to “great efforts” to contaminate the jury. The letter also claimed that he used unauthorized communications to instruct family members and others. to contact potential victims and witnesses through coded language.

In reference to the birthday posts published on their social media pages. through his childrenProsecutors accused Combs of Carry out a “meticulous” social campaign to influence the jury. – even tracking post analytics. Finally, the feds criticized him for his thoughts that “his prosecution is politically motivated,” words they claim are not constitutionally protected, according to court documents.

In opposition to the claims, Combs’ attorneys argued that all of Combs’ communications, indirect social media posting includedThey are protected by their First Amendment rights. To back up your argument, guess whose free speech case it was? That of none other than former President Donald J. Trump. Last year, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of D.C. upheld parts of a gag order against the 45th president after he was accused of plotting to overturn the 2020 election, according to justice.

From the Trump case, Combs’ lawyers argued that the Court should apply the part of the ruling which maintains that an accused has the right “to criticize and speak out against the prosecution and the criminal process that intends to deprive him of his freedom.”

“In United States against TrumpThe D.C. Circuit ‘assumed, without deciding, that the most demanding scrutiny applies to’ criminal defendants’ speech restrictions before trial,’ and that only a significant and imminent threat to the administration of criminal justice will support the restraining (a defendant’s) speech,’” the attorneys wrote.

Overall, they argued that Combs’ speech and other communications did not violate the Court’s gag order.