Freedom of speech in court (defendant)
<p>Based on the example of <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ed_Rosenthal" rel="nofollow noreferrer">Ed Rosenthal</a> there's something about freedom of speech that's puzzling me:</p>

<p>According to the article and to what I've read about the case, a <strong>defendant</strong> in court has been <strong>denied</strong> the right to even <strong>say</strong> that what he did was legal under state law. </p>

<p>In my personal opinion this looks like an outright violation of freedom of speech, because I can't think of any reason why a <strong>defendant</strong> should be in any way restricted as to what he is allowed to <strong>say</strong>. Being allowed to <strong>say</strong> anything doesn't force anyone (judge/juror) to believe that it's <strong>true</strong> and obviously there're good reasons for example to force witnesses to only say the truth, because their freedom of speech quickly conflicts with the defendant's right for a fair trial should they be allowed to lie.</p>

<p>I'd like to know the explanation for this as I'm sure there is one, though it's not obvious for an "outsider" like me. Besides that, I wonder if this has ever been challenged in court.</p>

<h2>A courtroom is not a podium</h2>

<p>A court is a forum for resolving a specific dispute. Testimony is restricted for a number of reasons the most all encompassing of which is relevance.</p>

<p>For testimony to be admitted it has to go to the issue in dispute. For a person charged under the laws of, say, India, it cannot be in any way relevant what the laws of, say, China have to say about the issue. Similarly, for a person charged with a Federal crime, state law is irrelevant (and vice-versa).</p>

<p>There is no free speech issue here because testimony is given only for the purpose of resolving the case. If it’s not relevant to that you can’t introduce it and, if you persist in trying the court can hold you in contempt.</p>

united-states freedom-of-speech