The freedom to say, "Stick 'em up!"

    Let's say I rob a bank. Nothing fancy. Nylon stocking over my head. Gun in my hand. Rush up to the window, point the gun at the trembling teller and say, "Stick 'em up! Gimme all the money."
     At which point I'm immediately arrested, as criminals often are. They're not geniuses, very stable or otherwise. Quite dumb really. An off-duty cop, in line behind me, makes the nab. I'm cuffed, led away.
     At my trial, my lawyer arises and airily begins my defense: "The First Amendment is the bedrock of our American freedoms. Take it away, and the rest of our quality of life crumbles. As free citizens, we are within our rights to make all sorts of statements: 'Down with the government!' or 'We need a new constitution' or 'Gimme all the money!' How sad a day it would be, when a simple imperative sentence considered against the law. Not eloquent, perhaps, not fully formed 'Give me all of the money, please,' we might prefer. But still a statement of entreaty, a request, one that no man should be prosecuted over...."
     How well would that argument go over?
     Not well, I'd imagine. Not in a world of sanity and fairness which, sad to say, we seem to be slipping away from.
     Because there are Donald Trump's lawyers, trying to frame his alleged plot to overthrow American democracy as a free speech issue. These were legitimate questions being asked by a responsible leader. A polite inquiry into the election process.
      "It attacks his ability to advocate for a political position, which is covered under the First Amendment," Trump attorney John Lauro told PBS. A political position of pressuring individual election officials, one-on-one, to overturn the election, dozens of failed lawsuits, constant airing of claims he absolutely knew to be untrue ("You're too honest," Trump told Mike Pence).
     "All of that is protected speech."
     As with any conspiracy theory, he scrapes together a ragtag bag of allegations and innuendo, fantasy and prevarication, and presents them all as a cohesive whole.
     Is there a fraud who would not use that argument?
     "My client, your honor, is not the quack peddling Neil Steinberg's Cancer-B-Gone Elixer that the prosecution just described, but a man of honor, asking legitimate questions about the medical establishment and offering a possible cure in the form of his $100-a-bottle pyramid program, which is not the 'pathetic scheme' outlined in the charges, but a growing, promising field of legitimate research in the medical community, Wishfulfillmentarianism, where the natural, innate engines of gullibility within the psyche of the patient are harnessed to promote good health..."
     We'd laugh if any other cheap crook tried it. But when Donald Trump does the exact same thing, as much as we'd like to laugh, we can't. Because too many people take this idiocy seriously for it to be funny.