Comment by llamaimperative

> It’s established from these cases that through 1/ qualified immunity and potentially (granted this happened after the case, and rank and file would not qualify…) 2/ presidential immunity for official acts, that any citizen could be detained for speech the reigning administration or local officials do not like, without consequence.

No, it’s really not established. I agree the consequences should have been more severe for both instances, but no, this does not mean the government is allowed to imprison people for their speech.