LOUISVILLE: A federal judge has rejected Donald Trump's free speech defence against a lawsuit accusing him of inciting violence against protesters at a campaign rally.
The president's lawyers sought to dismiss the lawsuit by three protesters who say they were roughed up by his supporters at a March 2016 rally in Louisville.
Mr Trump's lawyers contend that when the candidate said "Get 'em out of here", he did not intend for his supporters to use force.
Two women and a man say they were shoved and punched by audience members as Mr Trump directed them from the podium.
Much of it was captured on video and widely broadcast during the campaign, showing the Republican pointing at the protesters and repeating "get them out".
Judge David J Hale, in Louisville, ruled that the suit against Mr Trump, his campaign and three of his supporters could proceed.
Judge Hale found ample facts supporting allegations that the protesters' injuries were a "direct and proximate result" of Mr Trump's actions.
"It is plausible that Trump's direction to 'get 'em out of here' advocated the use of force," Judge Hale wrote.
Kashiya Nwanguma, Molly Shah and Henry Brousseau allege that they were physically attacked by several members of the audience, including Matthew Heimbach, Alvin Bamberger and an unnamed defendant they have yet to identify.
Mr Bamberger later apologised to the Korean War Veterans Association, whose uniform he wore at the rally.
He wrote that he "physically pushed a young woman down the aisle toward the exit" after "Trump kept saying 'get them out, get them out", according to the lawsuit.
Mr Heimbach sought to dismiss the lawsuit's discussion of his association with a white nationalist group and of statements he made about how Mr Trump could advance the group's interests.
The judge declined, saying such information could be important context when determining punitive damages.
The judge also declined to remove allegations that Ms Nwanguma, an African-American, was the victim of racial, ethnic and sexist slurs from the crowd at the rally. This context may support the plaintiffs' claims of negligence and incitement by Mr Trump and his campaign, the judge said.
"While the words themselves are repulsive, they are relevant to show the atmosphere in which the alleged events occurred," he wrote.
Lawyers for Mr Trump and his campaign argued that they cannot be held liable because they had no duty to the plaintiffs, who assumed the risk of injury when they decided to protest at the rally.
The judge countered that under the law, every person has a duty to every other person to use care to prevent foreseeable injury.
"In sum, the court finds that plaintiffs have adequately alleged that their harm was foreseeable and that the Trump defendants had a duty to prevent it," the judge ruled, referring the case to a federal magistrate, Judge H Brent Brennenstuhl, to handle preliminary litigation, discovery and settlement efforts.
Why are you making commenting on The Herald only available to subscribers?
It should have been a safe space for informed debate, somewhere for readers to discuss issues around the biggest stories of the day, but all too often the below the line comments on most websites have become bogged down by off-topic discussions and abuse.
heraldscotland.com is tackling this problem by allowing only subscribers to comment.
We are doing this to improve the experience for our loyal readers and we believe it will reduce the ability of trolls and troublemakers, who occasionally find their way onto our site, to abuse our journalists and readers. We also hope it will help the comments section fulfil its promise as a part of Scotland's conversation with itself.
We are lucky at The Herald. We are read by an informed, educated readership who can add their knowledge and insights to our stories.
That is invaluable.
We are making the subscriber-only change to support our valued readers, who tell us they don't want the site cluttered up with irrelevant comments, untruths and abuse.
In the past, the journalist’s job was to collect and distribute information to the audience. Technology means that readers can shape a discussion. We look forward to hearing from you on heraldscotland.com
Comments & Moderation
Readers’ comments: You are personally liable for the content of any comments you upload to this website, so please act responsibly. We do not pre-moderate or monitor readers’ comments appearing on our websites, but we do post-moderate in response to complaints we receive or otherwise when a potential problem comes to our attention. You can make a complaint by using the ‘report this post’ link . We may then apply our discretion under the user terms to amend or delete comments.
Post moderation is undertaken full-time 9am-6pm on weekdays, and on a part-time basis outwith those hours.
Read the rules here