How Vincent Bugliosi destroyed the First Amendment, by Rich Lowry

Tomorrow’s NRO editorial, reflecting the highly principled belief of its editors that the First Amendment forbids literally any verbal communication from being considered a criminal act, has been leaked to Roy Edroso:

No one has been stronger in condemnation of Charles Manson than National Review. We have condemned his drug use, his advocacy of “free love,” and his use of rock music and half-baked philosophy (strongly influenced, we must mention, by Marx and Dr. Benjamin Spock) to lure middle-class children away from the authority of society and their parents.

But Vincent Bugliosi’s reckless prosecution of Manson for the Tate-La Bianca murders — in which Manson was not, we must remind you, directly involved — strikes at the very heart of the rule of law.

It should be clear to everyone that this is a purely political prosecution engineered by Governor Jerry Brown to counter his low approval ratings, caused by the rise in crime under his leadership in the Golden State — which has come so quickly, and unnecessarily, after the tenure of Ronald Reagan, who reversed a surge in Black Panther violence by signing the Mulford Act.

Bugliosi argues that Manson created a “conspiracy” to commit these murders — or some murders, anyway; never, you will note, does he show Manson directed his followers to attack these specific victims by name. His language may have been extreme and intemperate, but it in no wise rose to the level of criminal conspiracy.

Also: While, as we have said, we have serious differences with Manson, we must acknowledge that he has a right to express himself — a right, that is, to be wrong.

We certainly do not believe in the “Helter Skelter… revolution” that Manson advocates. But hyperbole and even worse are still protected political speech. Bugliosi is prosecuting Manson simply for attempting to advance his cause through rhetoric — the very definition of political speech. Mendacious rhetoric in seeking to retain leadership in a cult is damnable — and, to be clear, punishable by public opprobrium and stern newspaper editorials — but it’s not criminal.

Also stay tuned to Rumble tonight, where Glenn Greenwald and Michael Tracey will explain why the prosecution of John Giotti in violation of his First Amendment rights to discuss his post-dinner plans at Sparks Steakhouse was outrageous, and also why Michael Sussman should be doing 20-to-life.