Judge Andrew Napolitano has weighed in on whether or not President Donald Trump can persuade a federal court to keep porn star Stormy Daniels' interview from being aired on CBS.

In an op-ed piece, Napolitano specifically points to the issue of freedom of speech that is protected in the First Amendment, but also there is protections for the press as well from laws that would shut them down from telling the truth.

Obviously, if an individual or the press is lying, they can be held responsible for that via a civil suit.  However, as we reported earlier this week, Daniels' interview was already conducted.

So, what exactly does Judge Napolitano say about the airing of the interview and the Trump attorneys possibly seeking to have it blocked?  He says that the answer is a simple "no."

Here's how Napolitano sets it up.

In 1931, in a famous case called Near v. Minnesota, the Supreme Court generally rejected the concept of “prior restraint.” Prior restraint is the use of the courts to prevent the media from disseminating materials they already have. The Near case dealt with an anti-Catholic, anti-Semitic, anti-African-American newspaper that Minnesota state courts had silenced. The Supreme Court overruled the state courts and held that the freedom of speech presumes that individuals will decide for themselves what to read and hear and the First Amendment keeps the government — which here includes the courts — from censoring the marketplace of ideas, even hateful ideas.

Forty years later, in the Pentagon Papers case, the Supreme Court made a similar ruling. There, Daniel Ellsberg, an employee of a contractor to the Department of Defense, stole highly classified documents that demonstrated that then-President Lyndon B. Johnson and his generals had knowingly deceived the American public about the war in Vietnam.

When Ellsberg gave the documents to The New York Times and The Washington Post, the Nixon administration hurriedly persuaded a federal judge in New York to enjoin the Times from publishing the documents. Before a federal judge in Washington could rule on a similar request — and bypassing the intermediate appellate courts — the Supreme Court took the case and ruled in favor of the freedom of speech and reinforced the judicial condemnation of prior restraint.

But the Pentagon Papers ruling went a step further than the Near opinion had. It ruled that no matter how a media outlet has acquired matters material to the public interest — even by theft of top-secret documents — the outlet is free to publish them. This, of course, does not absolve the thief (though the case against Ellsberg was dismissed because of FBI misconduct), but it makes clear that no court can block the media from revealing what they reasonably believe the public wants to hear.

So, how does this apply to the Daniels' interview and Trump?  Simple.

While many people don't think adultery is a really big deal for political office, it actually is not only a crime under God's law, but it also can carry penalties in states when a suit is filed under "alienation of affection."

Also, consider that adultery has a history of not being tolerated in our military and has been punished with a court-martial and dishonorable discharges.  So, how much more serious should the president, who becomes commander-in-chief of those same troops not be held to a high standard when it comes to fidelity to his wife?

This type of behavior makes a man vulnerable to manipulation and blackmail, and thus puts the country at risk, no matter how much good he may have done.  People used to understand this during the presidency of Bill Clinton.

If Daniels is lying, then she should be held responsible for slander.  However, according to previous court rulings, any alleged agreement that she has does not allow for a federal court to step in and block an interview from being aired to the public who may wish to know the substance of the interview.

While Napolitano didn't make an issue of it, he did point out that if Trump attorney Michael Cohen did what he claimed and used his own money to pay Daniels, that might be an issue regarding campaign finance.

Yet, here's the thing.  Americans, and people in general, should be able to listen or watch the interview themselves and determine whether or not Daniels is telling the truth or whether she is merely seeking attention as she ages in the porn business.

I think everyone can agree that she is an unsavory person, but I think everyone can also agree that President Trump has a pretty sordid sexual past as well.  While the alleged adultery took place in 2006 shortly after Mrs. Trump gave birth to the couple's son, Barron, and that does have an impact on the morality of a candidate running for office, which impacts his trustworthiness in that office, it is also of concern that any money paid to keep someone quiet about the alleged adulterous relationship would be significant as it would be an attempt to deceive the American people.

With that said, it is also known that Mr. Cohen presented an email allegedly signed by "Stormy Daniels" and not Stephanie Clifford (her real name), which claimed that she had not received hush money and that she never had a sexual relationship with Donald Trump.  It has also been said that the agreement she is bantering about was signed by her but not Trump.

Trump has denied the adultery and the payment.  I'll take him at his word, even though he has had a history of engaging in the behavior.

And before anyone jumps on me, understand, I'm very familiar with the story of King David, but the issue with David is that he confessed what he did and he repented.  That's the real issue here when we speak about anyone in public office who does not express fidelity to their spouse.

Furthermore, it's what we have been taught in the Scriptures by precept.

When man and woman come together in a marriage, they are bound to one another and God commands them not to commit adultery (Exodus 20:14).  When we move out of the jurisdiction of the family and into the Church, leaders are to be faithful to their wives (1 Timothy 3:2; Titus 1:6).  Yet, when we go into the civil sphere, Christians and professing Christians abandon those principles and pretty much have no moral standard for electing representatives.  Why? Because they have been lied to about what grace and faith are in Christian theology. Many have come to believe they are nothing more than mere license to sin, something that the apostle Paul says should not be (Romans 6:1-2).

So, I say, let her tell her story and present her documentation.  The people are smart enough to determine whether or not she is lying about it.  If she is telling the truth, then let it come out.

In either case, there is no reason, basis or precedent for a federal court to put a stop to an interview.

Don't forget to Like Freedom Outpost on Facebook, Google Plus, & Twitter. You can also get Freedom Outpost delivered to your Amazon Kindle device here.