by the First Amendment, but whether the First Amendment immunizes Kendall from criminal punishment for the contents of the July 7, 2009 Opinion. First, we emphasize that this case does not involve a situation where a judge has made inflammatory statements while acting in his capacity as a private citizen. Had Kendall published the exact same statements in a newspaper, made them on a television show, or otherwise uttered them outside of his judicial capacity, there is absolutely no question that they would be entitled to the highest level of First Amendment protection, and the People would have been required to prove an actual obstruction to the administration of justice in order to obtain a conviction on count one. See, e.g., Scott v. Flowers, 910 F.2d 201, 211 (5th Cir. 1990) (<HOLDING>); Mississippi Comm’n on Judicial Performance v.
holding county clerk sued in official capacity was entitled to the immunity the county enjoyed recognizing county officers as  those whose general authority and jurisdiction are confined within the limits of the county in which they are appointed who are appointed in and for a particular county and whose duties apply only to that county and through whom the county performs its usual political functions  holding that the county attorney had de facto authority and noting that the objection to the county attorneys authority was first made on appeal holding that suit against county sheriff in his official capacity was suit against county holding judges open letter to county officials attacking county court and district attorneys office was made in capacity as private citizen and thus protected under first amendment