Are gag orders constitutional?

[Harpy Eagle]

I was saying felons should be allowed to own weapons.

They should be allowed to bear them while in jail/prison?

 

[Rigby5]

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

You have to bring political parties into it because the whole point of why the gag order is illegal is because the indictment is illegally intended to harm an election.
The good a gag order can sometimes do, has to be weighed against the obvious harm a gag order has on the election.

Revealing that court staff have obvious political bias is perfectly legal to show the public so they can understand the criminal intent and involvement of the court itself.

I do no like Trump, but it is clear these 91 indictments are totally illegal.
All involved need to be arrested.

 

[TNHarley]

So, it is, in your opinion, to jail people during their trial if they are seen as a danger to society?

wtf

 

[Captain Caveman]

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..

You're just gonna attract the Trump mouth frothers. TDS is stronger than the Force in Luke Skywalker

 

[Rigby5]

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

Worse if is the court is biased.
We accept media bias as long as the truth is also capable of being heard.
So then we can NOT accept gag orders that have no purpose other than to further media bias by preventing truth completely.

 

[meaner gene]

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

A supervising judge oversees the grand jury selection and makes sure the grand jury process follows the rules.

The judge in the case. And an indictment is subject to appeal,

 

[TNHarley]

You have to bring political parties into it because the whole point of why the gag order is illegal is because the indictment is illegally intended to harm an election.
The good a gag order can sometimes do, has to be weighed against the obvious harm a gag order has on the election.

Revealing that court staff have obvious political bias is perfectly legal to show the public so they can understand the criminal intent and involvement of the court itself.

I do no like Trump, but it is clear these 91 indictments are totally illegal.
All involved need to be arrested.

This thread is not about trump. It is about gag orders in general.

 

[BlindBoo]

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?

The past is prologue.

"Threats of violence have escalated after the fourth criminal indictment of former President Trump. In Georgia, grand jurors’ names, addresses and images were released online by Trump allies and a racist death threat against the judge presiding over the federal Jan. 6 case led to an arrest. Laura Barrón-López discussed the alarming trend and its impact on civil servants with Tammy Patrick.

Trump conspiracies inspire threats against judges, jurors and election workers

Threats of violence have escalated after the fourth criminal indictment of former President Trump. In Georgia, grand jurors’ names, addresses and images were released online by Trump allies and a racist death threat against the judge presiding over the federal Jan. 6 case led to an arrest. Laura...

www.pbs.org

First, it was Ruby Freeman, a Fulton County election worker targeted and smeared by Trump and his allies in the aftermath of the 2020 election.
The Georgia indictment details how members of the enterprise traveled from out of state to harass Freeman, intimidate her and solicit her to falsely confess to election crimes that she did not commit. And, last week, a racist death threat against the judge presiding over the federal January 6 case led to an arrest.

It's a familiar pattern. Trump posts vitriolic attacks and conspiracies. Then his most ardent followers stock or threatened the targets of those attacks."

 

[Rawley]

Sounds like the judicial system needs work. Unconstitutionally taking away ones right isnt justifiable.

That's why there is an appeals process. Particularly to guard against actions by partisan state AG/ prosecutors and judges

 

[BrokeLoser]

Not if it infringes on the rights of others.

Now we are getting somewhere, the same holds true for the other parts of the 1st as well, correct?

Who is the authority on what infringes on the rights of others?

 

[Harpy Eagle]

Who is the authority on what infringes on the rights of others?

The Govt of course.

They are the ones that said it is wrong for me to kill you.

 

[Harpy Eagle]

wtf

So, it is, in your opinion, against the constitution to jail people during their trial if they are seen as a danger to society?

 

[Harpy Eagle]

Who is the authority on what infringes on the rights of others?

If they catch this guy in Maine doing the killing, would it be, in your opinion, against the Constitution for him to be jailed during his trial since he had not yet been found guilty?

 

[Rigby5]

Where does the constitution give the government the power to do that? To limit our rights when it feels like it?

It is basic to all law that government is not actually "doing" anything, when it simply acts to defend the rights of someone else.
It is not "when it feels like it", but only when there is a clear violation of the rights of others.
The point being that government is NOT at all any sort of source of legal authority.
Only the defense of rights of others IS a source of legal authority.

And the problem with this gag order is that it defends no one but instead prevents people from learning of illegal activity and intent by the court itself.
And that is criminal.

 

[Foxfyre]

Free speech isn’t absolute. In this case concern for the safety of court officers and witnesses and the integrity of the jury pool outweigh the right.

Baloney. If calling people names or criticizing their actions endangered people, no American would not be gagged. Most particularly members of Congress, Joe Biden and/or any number of his spokespeople would be guilty of endangering millions. Hillary Clinton proposed putting Republicans in re-education camps. Does that put Republicans at risk of their safety?

Chuck Schumer, on the steps of the Supreme Court Building, yelled to an angry agitated crowd: "I want to tell you Gorsuch. I want to tell you Kavanaugh. You have released the whirlwind and you will pay the price. You won’t know what hit you if you go forward with these awful decisions.”

The Justices indeed had angry threatening mobs show up at their homes requiring police intervention and a reluctant Pelosi was forced to order extra protection for them. Schumer was rebuked by Justice Roberts and others for his threatening words, and he was definitely a bad actor when he uttered them, but it was not a violation of free speech. He didn't tell bad actors to go to the Justice's homes and threaten them.

All honorable people want is equal protection under the law, equal application of the law, and not partisan misuse/abuse of the law.

 

[bendog]

I thought the OP prohibited discussion of Trump's case, but I see, and am unsurprised, that the OP did not mean this. LOL

 

[meaner gene]

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?

Trump does nothing BUT threaten people. And he's done is his entire business life. Whether the threats are direct, indirect, implied, or even insinuated, they're threats none the less. And the threats have to be taken in the context of someone with almost unlimited resources and personnel to carry out those threats.

 

[TNHarley]

Folks, the Constitution lists the powers of the governments. The Constitution was made to LIMIT it.
It does NOT give a list of conditions for ones rights. It does NOT say you can have your things searched without a warrant. It does not say you lose your free speech because some judge issues a "gag order." It does not say the second amendment can be limited to certain guns, or you cant have guns because you have been arrested. That shit is the govt ABUSING its powers.
The fact you people sit here and justify it is fucking disturbing. You people are fucking SHEEP.
Despite all of history. Despie current atrocities. Despite current corruption, you STILL justify the govt abusing its powers. Governments are the biggest mass murders in history, and ALWAYS will be.
I dont give a shit if there is a law, or a ruling that makes shit up about the Constitution. IT ISNT IN THERE.
You folks should be standing up for your rights, not giving them away. Even if all it is words on the internet.

 

[bendog]

It's a bait and switch thread. Kill it.

 

[Rigby5]

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?

A sentence can be imposed under the authority delegated by those the sentence protects.
It does not derive any authority from government.

Similarly a gag order have to have a specific reason as to who and what rights are threatened otherwise.
And there is none.
The goal of the gag order is to prevent the obvious bias of the court from being revealed.