Are gag orders constitutional?

[meaner gene]

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

So why did it take 11 years for you to think of it?

 

[StoneCold]

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

And you wouldn't ask it if your Gawd, POS45, didn't create the problem!
Now answer my question: Indicted or not, can YOU go around and threaten witnesses, prosecutors, the judge, or court staff involved in any case?
Or hike your skirt and run away!

 

[Rigby5]

Informed yes, corrupted no.

Informed that court members have personal political connections, is not corruption but accurate.

 

[meaner gene]

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?

You just said the drowning is what spurred you to post a thread about it.
If this thread isn't about politics (aka Trump) why did you post it in POLITICS?

 

[Rogue AI]

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

The Constitution, it's pretty clear what our rights are, and hurt feelings aren't covered. In the matter of speech, there already exists a remedy, civil actions against slander and libel. This gag order to protect the government is clearly unconstitutional.

 

[SassyIrishLass]

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..

The ACLU is siding with Orange Man... Leftists would screw up a wet dream.

Complete imbeciles

 

[TNHarley]

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.

I didnt want this to turn into a trump thread. 90% of the threads in this section are about him.

 

[Rawley]

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

?? Addressing your point that the laws can be used to curb speech to protect judges and Comrade Garland refused to enforce these laws even after an assassination attempt on a SC Associate Justice.

 

[Rigby5]

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

Very WRONG!
Government is not allowed to just "make them up".
There are long standing principles of what our DNA considers proper and that is what governments are supposed to capture in legislation.
There are never supposed to be any arbitrary laws in a republic.
We started with British Common Law, and refined from there.
In effect, our DNA is god, and our sense of justice does come "down from on high".

 

[TNHarley]

So why did it take 11 years for you to think of it?

Why did it take me 11 years to think of a thread about lakes? GTFO

 

[TNHarley]

And you wouldn't ask it if your Gawd, POS45, didn't create the problem!
Now answer my question: Indicted or not, can YOU go around and threaten witnesses, prosecutors, the judge, or court staff involved in any case?
Or hike your skirt and run away!

I do not like him. You just assume i do because you are obviously a binary POS.

 

[Harpy Eagle]

Real rich coming from you.

I am just parroting you, since that is the requirement for anything and everything.

You are the guy after all that thinks felons on jail should be allowed to have guns

 

[TNHarley]

You just said the drowning is what spurred you to post a thread about it.
If this thread isn't about politics (aka Trump) why did you post it in POLITICS?

Because its about the constitution. The thing our political landscape is framed around.

 

[BackAgain]

Libel and slander are speech that are prosecutable crimes.

Not exactly. They are forms of speech which can be addressed in civil court. But they wouldn’t involve criminal prosecution.

“Speech” which can be criminally sanctioned include things like revealing national security secrets, lying under oath, “yelling fire (falsely) in a crowded theater,” and making threats of violence against individuals, in many circumstances.

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.

Agreed.

 

[TNHarley]

I am just parroting you, since that is the requirement for anything and everything.

You are the guy after all that thinks felons on jail should be allowed to have guns

I figured. Because you damn sure dont care what the constitution actually says.

 

[meaner gene]

I didnt want this to turn into a trump thread. 90% of the threads in this section are about him.

Maybe you missed the title of the section

It's not called politics for nothing

 

[Rigby5]

I didnt want this to turn into a trump thread. 90% of the threads in this section are about him.

But it has to be specific, since gag orders can be justified sometimes.
What has to be debated is whether or not there is any justification in this case.
And I see nothing wrong with the defense alluding to court bias.
I think the court is biased as well.
Seems pretty obvious to me.

 

[Harpy Eagle]

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.

Excessive bail shall not be required, nor excessive fines imposed, nor cruel and unusual punishments inflicted.


Where does it say anything about pre-trail confinement without the possibility of bail?

 

[BackAgain]

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

This could become a significant case on that point of law, also.

 

[Harpy Eagle]

I figured. Because you damn sure dont care what the constitution actually says.

Neither do you, so it is all good