Are gag orders constitutional?

[TNHarley]

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

no

 

[meaner gene]

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

Each subsequent amendment, if conflicting, supersedes the constitution or prior amendments. That's the nature of the amendment process.

So if the 6th amendment requires the 1st be abridged by gag orders, that's the result of amending the constitution.

 

[iamwhatiseem]

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..

Speech is not totally guaranteed.
Example, revealing top secret info is not only illegal but can be punishable by death.
I think a judge could do so if it only pertains to a specific thing.
I do not believe a judge has the right to order a gag order that is general.... can't talk at all about what happens in a courtroom etc.

 

[Harpy Eagle]

The point of the 2nd amendment is to allow for self defense.

Show me where it says that in the Constitution.

 

[meaner gene]

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

Those are the judicial powers of the US under law and the constitution.

 

[WEATHER53]

The 2nd wasn't about self defense. It was about protecting the states from the federal government, and from their own populations.

A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State,...

Clauses have meaning.

The militia IS self defense tard noggin

 

[TNHarley]

Each subsequent amendment, if conflicting, supersedes the constitution or prior amendments. That's the nature of the amendment process.

So if the 6th amendment requires the 1st be abridged by gag orders, that's the result of amending the constitution.

 

[TNHarley]

Speech is not totally guaranteed.
Example, revealing top secret info is not only illegal but can be punishable by death.
I think a judge could do so if it only pertains to a specific thing.
I do not believe a judge has the right to order a gag order that is general.... can't talk at all about what happens in a courtroom etc.

Thats govt. The govt doesnt have constitutional rights.
Where does the govt get that power from? Where in the constitution does it say a judge can take away ones freedom of speech if it pertains to a certain thing?

 

[TNHarley]

Those are the judicial powers of the US under law and the constitution.

Where does the constitution say a judge can just take away someones constitutional rights?

 

[Harpy Eagle]

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

So, again you are against anyone being put in jail since that takes away a number of their rights.

 

[Harpy Eagle]

Where in the constitution does it say a judge can take away ones freedom of speech if it pertains to a certain thing?

Where does the constitution does it say a judge can take away ones rights for merely being found guilty of a crime?

 

[TNHarley]

So, again you are against anyone being put in jail since that takes away a number of their rights.

omg lol

 

[kaz]

Gag orders were around before your election fantasies, genius.

Gothca. So then I feel you, it makes sense that Democrats use them for political ends.

On another subject, have you noticed you're becoming more stupid the older you get rather than you learn more?

As Spock would say, fascinating ....

 

[Harpy Eagle]

omg lol

these are your words, but I get why you are laughing at them.

 

[Rogue AI]

I dont agree. While I understand tainting the jury pool, the govt has no authority to deny the rights of one, for another. All because they are expressing their constitutional rights.

Prosecutions are supposed to be based on evidence, not public opinion. If the government fears public opinion they can file for a change of venue, not violate the rights of citizens.

 

[BrokeLoser]

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

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.

Rogue AI but my2¢ and Golfing Gator say gag orders are constitutional…they just can’t illustrate for us the legal pathway that makes them constitutional.
Do you think they’re just going on “since Father Government does it it must be constitutional”?

 

[TNHarley]

these are your words, but I get why you are laughing at them.

And the lying starts

 

[Harpy Eagle]

@Rogue AI but @my2¢ and @Golfing Gator say gag orders are constitutional…they just can’t illustrate for us the legal pathway that makes them constitutional.

I did so in my first post in this thread.

 

[Harpy Eagle]

And the lying starts

Nope, not even a little bit.

You said, and I quote....No, it doesnt say they can just take away peoples rights


So, are peoples rights taken away when they are put in prison?

Yes?

No?

 

[TNHarley]

I did so in my first post in this thread.

And it was wrong.