Are gag orders constitutional?

[TNHarley]

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

Yes.

 

[konradv]

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.

There are a lot of things it doesn’t say, hence the courts to sort it out. It’s messy, but it’s our republic.

 

[TNHarley]

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

I have stated multiple times this isnt about trump. I just did it again, a few posts ago. Learn to fucking read.

 

[meaner gene]

There are no jurors in this case, and the people have a right to be totally informed.

Informed yes, corrupted no.

 

[Rigby5]

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

Of course it is a violation of rights of the defendant to jail before trial.
But the rights of the defendant can be violated legally if there is even greater risk to others.

 

[TNHarley]

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

Fuck off. Youre an idiot.

 

[TNHarley]

There are a lot of things it doesn’t say, hence the courts to sort it out. It’s messy, but it’s our republic.

It does not give restrictions on our constitutional rights. The government MADE THEM UP without any authority to do so.
If all of this shit is so important, there is an amendment process.

 

[StoneCold]

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

Good grief? Nice deflection. I also asked if YOU can threaten those people!
Also too, you would not ask this question if POS45 didn't create the problem!

 

[my2¢]

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

Yes, they're constitutional. As far as the 2nd question, in the jury selection process lawyers are crafty in questioning potential jurors.

 

[Harpy Eagle]

Of course it is a violation of rights of the defendant to jail before trial.
But the rights of the defendant can be violated legally if there is even greater risk to others.

where does the Constitution say this?

 

[konradv]

It does not give restrictions on our constitutional rights. The government MADE THEM UP without any authority to do so.
If all of this shit is so important, there is an amendment process.

Of course the government made them up! Did you think laws came down from on high?

 

[meaner gene]

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

Yet you never would have posted such a thread, if Trump wasn't subject to a gag order. You've had 11 years to have brought this up before now.

 

[TNHarley]

Good grief? Nice deflection. I also asked if YOU can threaten those people!
Also too, you would not ask this question if POS45 didn't create the problem!

This thread isnt about dems, repubs or the orange fat ass.
It is about gag orders and the constitution.

 

[TNHarley]

Yet you never would have posted such a thread, if Trump wasn't subject to a gag order. You've had 11 years to have brought this up before now.

So?
If I saw an article about someone drowning in a lake, and i made a thread about a lake or drowning, it doesnt mean it has anything to do with that person drowning, does it?

 

[TNHarley]

where does the Constitution say this?

Real rich coming from you.

 

[BlindBoo]

You should pass that bit of wisdom onto Comrade Garland

It may have to go the the SC but I'll bet they rule it is Constitutional.

 

[TNHarley]

Of course the government made them up! Did you think laws came down from on high?

No, laws come from corrupt lying pieces of shit.

 

[Rogue AI]

So explain pretrial detention. If someone is on trial for mass murder, should they be allowed to be free?

Covered by the opportunity of reasonable bail and speedy trials. The Founders weren't stupid, 'reasonable' bail protects society while also ensuring the government cannot abuse their power by allowing for appeals to ensure due process.

 

[Rigby5]

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

Nah, its valid.
We have vast government over reach, like Prohibition, the War on Drugs, federal gun control, mandatory sentences, asset forfeiture, lies about Iraqi WMD, lies about the Ukraine, etc.

Clearly gag orders are only legal when they can be justified by the defense of someone's rights.
Arbitrary gag orders are illegal since we have a right to follow what the courts are doing.

 

[konradv]

So?
If I saw an article about someone drowning in a lake, and i made a thread about a lake or drowning, it doesnt mean it has anything to do with that person drowning, does it?

I think the problem is that want to treat this as a total thought experiment and are refusing to take a look at real world examples.