Let that sink in. The DA's office actually tried to prevent a word from being spoken in a courtroom.

The case involves defendants charged in connection with Palestine solidarity protests in the city. Jenkins' office argued that the term "genocide" would be prejudicial and inflammatory — essentially that it would bias the jury. The judge disagreed.

Now, you might have strong feelings about the protests themselves. Maybe you think the demonstrators were exercising core First Amendment rights. Maybe you think they crossed legal lines and should face consequences. Fair enough either way. But here's the thing: trying to sanitize the language defendants can use in their own defense is a deeply troubling move from a prosecutor's office.

The entire point of a trial is to let both sides make their case — with context, with motivation, with the messy, uncomfortable words that explain why people did what they did. If a defendant blocked a road because they believed a genocide was occurring, that belief is relevant to their defense. You don't have to agree with the characterization to recognize that the defendant has a right to articulate it.

This is the kind of prosecutorial overreach that should raise eyebrows across the political spectrum. DA Jenkins has positioned herself as a tough-on-crime alternative to her predecessor, Chesa Boudin, and on many fronts, that's been a welcome shift. But "tough on crime" shouldn't mean "controlling what words people are allowed to say in their own defense." That's not law and order — that's something else entirely.

The judge made the right call. In America, we don't let prosecutors edit the dictionary before a trial begins. Full stop.