Are gag orders constitutional?

[meaner gene]

If the trial is illegal and abusive, then a gag order is illegal.
Since there is no jury, the judge can not claim it is to prevent jury contamination.
Since there are no juveniles, it can't be to protect them.
I can not see any legal justification for a gag order without an obvious reason like that.

Whether a jury or a bench trial, the integrity of the witnesses must still be preserved, as would be preventing corrupting the witnesses or jury pool of a future pending trial.

 

[BrokeLoser]

There are these things called "laws", perhaps you have heard of them.

Federal Laws derive from the Constitution and the enumerated powers.
Connect the dots for us bud….don’t just say “they do because they can”….that’s what Father Government loving statists do.

 

[Couchpotato]

And gag orders are not automatic either. But both are legal and are seen as Constitutional.

I didn’t say they werent.

 

[BackAgain]

Of course they are. Just like the laws that protect judges and jury from threats. The Dirty Don "Corleone's" Gapping Maw surely can be a serious threat.

Bullshit. President Trump “threatened” nobody.

And why shouldn’t he be allowed to complain (very vocally) that his persecutor and the judge and the judge’s law Secretary are biased AF?

 

[BackAgain]

You’ll just have to accept it. We’re a republic. Mob rule like we saw on J6 is abhorrent.

We didn’t see mob rule on J6. We did see some “mob” behavior. Nothing more

 

[konradv]

We didn’t see mob rule on J6. We did see some “mob” behavior. Nothing more

Mob rule, if they’d succeeded, then.

 

[my2¢]

Gag orders are put in place so that the prosecution and defendants present their case through sworn testimony. This prevents both sides from using the media to influence jurors.

 

[Harpy Eagle]

I didn’t say they werent.

Seems to be the topic of the thread.

 

[Rigby5]

Circular logic. Who ruled on the legality of the indictments?

The judges ruled on the legality of the indictments, so then the judges themselves needs to be prosecuted.
Clearly the indictment in this case is totally and obviously false.
Nothing on a loan application can ever be considered fraud, since there are no standards, rules, or even any means by which to even begin to claim harm.
The law is clear.
Banks by law have to run their own independent evaluation of collateral property.

One indictment is hard to claim is an illegal attempt to violate election laws.
But 91 indictments, especially when they are as absurd as this one about loan fraud, clearly is illegal.
People should be up in arms over 91 indictments.
Clearly they are all expensive and time consuming, so a deliberate abuse of law in order to prevent free elections.

 

[TNHarley]

Are YOU allowed to threaten witnesses, the prosecutor, the court staff, even if not indicted? Seriously? Now what would you think if a Dem politician was the one issuing the threats.
Think hard. Don't hurt yourself.

Why are you bringing political parties into it? Good grief.

 

[Harpy Eagle]

Federal Laws derive from the Constitution and the enumerated powers.
Connect the dots for us bud….don’t just say “they do because they can”….that’s what Father Government loving statists do.

If you wish to argue that inmates should be allowed to exercise their 2nd amendment rights, you go right ahead, I will not stop you

 

[Couchpotato]

Mob rule, if they’d succeeded, then.

Then what? Let’s say they killed everyone insode the capitol. Do they just take over? Seriously. How does that play out in your mind? Do you really believe everyone in the US woukd just shrug and say whelp guess this group of idiots is in charge now…..

 

[BrokeLoser]

Gag orders are put in place so that the prosecution and defendants present their case through sworn testimony. This prevents both sides from using the media to influence jurors.

Two things:
Is such an order constitutional?
What happens when media and social media are bias by default?

 

[TNHarley]

Which of the enumerated powers grants the Govt the right to revoke ones 2A right?

Yet we do it every time we put someone in jail. We do it to convicted felons even after they are out of jail.

And that isnt right.

 

[Foxfyre]

Lets ignore the peaches-and-chief for a minute. Lets forget him and his gag orders. This is a general question.
Are gag orders constitutional? How can ones speech be silenced with threat of hefty fines, jail, imprisoned to their home etc for talking about the government?
I know there is a Supreme court case about it, but that doesnt really mean anything in this thread. They also said it was constitutional for the tyrant FDR to imprison citizens simply for their heritage, forcing people to salute the flag was constitutional, and a state saying a black and white person couldnt get married was legal

When Silence Isn’t Golden: How Gag Orders Can Evade First Amendment Protections

Trials must be conducted at law, rather than in the press, and courts sometimes feel the need to assert control of the outflow of information around judicial matters to preserve the fair trial rights of litigants.

law.yale.edu

Again, please leave trump out of this. I know TDS is a serious mental condition, but damn..

Libel and slander are speech that are prosecutable crimes. But calling people names, even 'crook' or 'corrupt' or 'dishonest' or whatever does not rise to the level of libel and slander unless the person falsifies the specific action that makes a person a 'crook' or 'corrupt' or 'dishonest' or whatever or otherwise illegally sullies a person's reputation or does him/her other material harm.

A gag order from a judge intended to prevent a person from expressing a negative opinion about anything or anybody in my opinion is a direct violation of free speech and therefore unconstitutional and illegal.

 

[BackAgain]

Mob rule, if they’d succeeded, then.

We don’t accept mob rule.

Riots are mob rule behavior. Were you equally concerned with the summer riots by BLM and associates a couple of years ago?

 

[Harpy Eagle]

People should be up in arms over 91 indictments.

so, what are you waiting for?

 

[TNHarley]

read your OWN damn link. roflmao

mkay

 

[BrokeLoser]

If you wish to argue that inmates should be allowed to exercise their 2nd amendment rights, you go right ahead, I will not stop you

Start that thread…I’ll be all over it. This one is about something different. You didn’t know that?
Just admit it…on this, you are statist as fuck.

 

[Harpy Eagle]

And that isnt right.

So, you are saying that someone that has been found guilty of a crime should not be sentenced by the judge?

Really?

Or are you saying that people in jail should be allowed to possess fire arms?