Following his fourth indictment, a judge has imposed restrictions on Donald Trump’s social media activity, sparking a division of opinions across the internet.

The order, issued by Fulton County Superior Judge Scott McAfee, explicitly commands the former president to abstain from any actions that might potentially intimidate individuals designated as co-defendants or witnesses involved in the ongoing case.

Similarly, the order mandates that Trump must refrain from any activities that could hinder the smooth administration of justice.

In particular, the order significantly limits the former president’s capacity to create new posts or share existing posts authored by others. Legal experts have voiced concerns about this extensive constraint, perceiving it as potentially detrimental to Trump’s legal team.

The order reads: “The Defendant shall perform no act to intimidate any person known to him or her to be a co-defendant or witness in this case or to otherwise obstruct the administration of justice. The above shall include, but are not limited to, posts on social media or reposts of posts made by another individual on social media.”

US District Court Judge Tanya Chutkan emphasized the gravity of the situation, advising all parties linked to the case to exercise extraordinary prudence. Her concern revolved around statements that might wield the power to intimidate, coerce, or influence jurors and witnesses.

In a poignant reminder of the legal principle that everything said can be used against those involved, the judge cautioned that seemingly innocuous statements could be weaponized during the legal proceedings.

News of the order spread across the internet, eliciting a variety of reactions. Sarcastically, one individual wrote, “Wait, you mean to tell me that I can’t legally say whatever I want whenever I want 100% of the time, no matter the consequences? What do you mean I have no idea what the concept of ‘free speech’ actually means?”

Some commenters likened the former president’s behavior to that of a child. One person noted, “[Trump] is like a 9-year-old who won’t stop misbehaving until you take away their electronics.” Another commented, “He won’t abide by it. He can’t resist spewing [garbage] on social media.”

Many expressed doubts about Trump’s ability to adhere to the rules. One individual predicted, “He’ll just have other people get on social media and casually encourage acts of violence.” Another wondered, “Seems everyone is in agreement he will violate this. The question is, will there be any meaningful consequences when he does?”

A range of opinions about the former president emerged. Some defended him, asserting, “America loves and wants this man for president. Now they are attacking his First Amendment rights to talk about his own criminal trial.”

As discussions unfolded, some comments took extreme turns. One person claimed, “Sounds like something a communist nation would do.” Another clarified the situation, “No, these are common terms if you want bail. He doesn’t have to agree, then he will be able to say anything he wants. But he won’t be free and won’t have a phone. I don’t think MAGA understands that these are terms Trump agreed to.”

Curiosity arose regarding Trump’s ability to stay off social media. One individual speculated, “Trump is deranged. There is no way he will stay off social media. The man can’t control his impulses in the slightest.” Another pondered, “Yeah, it’s clear he’s extremely impulsive and loses control a lot. He won’t stay off social media for long. Maybe we should place bets.”

Amid the discourse, some found themselves puzzled about the situation. One person claimed, “Pretty sure this is illegal. They can’t just ban him from saying anything.”

Another offered clarification, explaining, “It’s not illegal. It’s entirely normal and it happens all the time. They’re not banning him from saying anything and everything, they’re banning him from using social media to intimidate people.”