Are gag orders constitutional?

[Robert W]

Do you disagree with slander and libel laws? They go against the 1st.

Do you think the freedom to practice your religion should have no limitations?

Slander and Libel laws (Libel is in print and slander using the voice) involve other parties than the voice or the print. And must include a provision called of malice.

This judge as I understand this matter thinks he is protecting the court clerk. Trump denied it was about the Clerk but was against the Witness, Cohen.

Judge keeps Donald Trump's $10,000 gag order fine amid civil fraud trial

A New York judge on Thursday reconsidered but ultimately stood by his decision to fine Donald Trump $10,000 for violating a gag order barring the former U.S. president from speaking publicly about court staff during his civil fraud trial.

www.reuters.com

 

[Robert W]

Trump has to fight it in the court of public opinion, because he's running out of lawyers.

I doubt he is running out of lawyers. This is a huge payday for his lawyers.

 

[BlindBoo]

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

I apologize for bringing up politics like Trumps gag order.

 

[Foxfyre]

I am pretty sure we agree. I don’t like the ACLU. But I do recognize that they are committed to free speech. And, for the most part (with some limited exceptions only), I approve of their position.

They tend to be more 1st Amendment freedom of speech absolutists than I am. But we’re not that far apart.

In the case of judicial gag orders, it is the government (a judge is just a part of our government, after all) which seeks to impose its power to prevent speech. If there is any justification for such governmental action at all in light of our Constitution, it would have to be a crucial justification. In civil cases and especially in non jury trial settings, I contend that no such crucial justification exists.

In the linked thread, Mike Johnson's take on free speech while grilling Mayorkas is brilliant. As he clearly and articulately explains, the reason there are no federal laws defining what is and is not acceptable speech is that the Founders did not trust a self serving government to have the power to dictate what is and is not acceptable speech.

The left turns the whole concept of free speech on its head when they maintain everything from mass shootings to death threats on congresspersons or judges to riots, vandalism, theft, arson etc. etc. etc. is a direct result of angry or critical rhetoric from the right. They never EVER however see angry or critical rhetoric from the left as anything other than a constitutional right to free speech.

And THAT is why the Founders were so wise to not trust individuals, especially those in government with power to implement the law, to say what is and is not allowable speech as there is far too much likelihood such determinations would be self serving and not equal protection under the law. And I'm pretty sure to a man, the Founders would have found a judge ordering a gag order to silence criticism or angry opinions to be way out of line.

Damn, Michael Johnson is Good!

He makes Jim Jorden look like a Light-weight.

www.usmessageboard.com

 

[meaner gene]

The gag order cannot violate someone's rights. Gag orders aren't in the Constitution, free speech is.

The right to a speedy and fair trial is in the constitution.

6th amendment “In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of the State and district wherein the crime shall have been committed,

That has a guarantee of an "impartial jury". Which a gag order is meant to preserve.

 

[TNHarley]

Which a gag order is meant to preserve.

While violating someones rights.
I find it absurd to defend something like a judge picking and choosing who gets rights.

 

[struth]

How are they constitutional, though? What in the Constitution, gives the judicial branch the power to limit my rights?

really? the Courts limit people's rights all the time, they lock people up all the time...are you really asking that question? Check the third branch of Govt.

 

[Marener]

The gag order cannot violate someone's rights. Gag orders aren't in the Constitution, free speech is.

Pretty sure being locked up violates rights.

 

[BlindBoo]

Zzz

The past sometimes is prolog, but that has nothing to do with this conversation.

And people get worked-up over lots of issues. That’s not a reason to shit down free speech. From our earliest days as a nation, we have upheld the principle that it is more speech (debate and reason) which is the best remedy for speech with which we disagree.

By your logic, in the days before the Civil War speech in opposition to slavery would have been properly sanctioned as “inflammatory.” It was inflammatory. So what? The First Amendment still supported the right of abolitionists to state their case. Thank God.

As if 1860 compares to todays multi-media world of instant communications. Where Dirty Don Corleone's lies spread across the world twice before the truth has it's morning cup of coffee. The judge has every reason to believe the mob boss like verbal attacks on his clerk would result in death threats by unhinged followers of the Don.

 

[kaz]

I didnt say that we should.

I'd have supported locking him up before in a psych ward, not a prison. But not anymore since Democrats started using our legal system to lock up their political opponents

 

[BlindBoo]

?? 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.

Did the would be assassin consider himself the whirlwind Schumer said was unleashed or was he just a crazy fuck who turned himself in? Does Schumer's followers have a hist of issuing death threats based on his rhetoric?

 

[Rawley]

Did the would be assassin consider himself the whirlwind Schumer said was unleashed or was he just a crazy fuck who turned himself in? Does Schumer's followers have a hist of issuing death threats based on his rhetoric?

As much as any Trump supporter.

 

[TNHarley]

really? the Courts limit people's rights all the time, they lock people up all the time...are you really asking that question? Check the third branch of Govt.

Doesnt make it right

 

[meaner gene]

While violating someones rights.
I find it absurd to defend something like a judge picking and choosing who gets rights.

As they say, your right to swing your fist, ends right before my nose.

The right to an impartial jury is an a superseding amendment. Each new amendment if conflicting, modifies or repeals the relevant parts of the constitution or prior amendments.

Just like the 21st amendment changed the 18th amendment.

 

[meaner gene]

Doesnt make it right

You may argue right or wrong. But it's in the Constitution (Article III) so it's the law of the land, like it or not.

 

[TNHarley]

You may argue right or wrong. But it's in the Constitution (Article III) so it's the law of the land, like it or not.

Whats in the constitution?

 

[TNHarley]

The right to an impartial jury is an a superseding amendment.

I understand you dont know what term means. Thats ok. You dont seem to know much of anything.

 

[meaner gene]

Whats in the constitution?

Judicial power of the US, and through it, their power to take away peoples rights.

 

[struth]

Doesnt make it right

Haha really? Having a judical branch of govt is wrong? Haha wow

 

[TNHarley]

Judicial power of the US, and through it, their power to take away peoples rights.

No, it doesnt say they can just take away peoples rights