I'd like to hear your analysis of why the prosecution is a disgrace. My understanding is that Stewart is a very highly competent officer of the court, and that she not only knew the law, but signed an order promising she wouldn't permit or facilitate political communication by her client. She admits she did so, for the pretty dumb (if true) reason that she somehow thought getting her client back in the papers would help him. She then dictated a speech or manifesto her client passed to her. That speech withdrew his support for a cease-fire.
How is transmission of that speech not a knowing, intended act of helping her client call for imminent violence?
I understand the importance of preserving both the need to prove mens rea and also the strong right to freedom of speech and legal defense. But how is all this Stewart stuff a disgrace? And why does it dampen anybody's prospects for a proper defense? The only precedent it sets is to show defense lawyers they can't violate the political gag order in terrorist cases. What's so awful about that?