Are gag orders constitutional?

[kaz]

Show me where it says that in the Constitution.

WTF is wrong with you? Seriously, what? Google quotes by the founders on the second you stupid useless fuck. Every time I think I can't think less of leftists. Wow

 

[Harpy Eagle]

The judge doesnt do that, the states do.

The judge gives the sentence. And where do the states get the power to take away peoples rights? Where does it say in the Constitution they can do that?

They dont lose their guns going to jail, they cant have them in jail.

Which means they are being denied their 2nd Amendment rights while in prison as they cannot bear arms while in there.

 

[MinTrut]

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..

^ Idiot.

You're asking because of Trump, but don't want Trump discussed.

This is LITERALLY a case by case thing.

There is no general answer.

It depends on the situation.

Dear God but conservatives can be morons...

 

[Harpy Eagle]

WTF is wrong with you? Seriously, what? Google quotes by the founders on the second you stupid useless fuck. Every time I think I can't think less of leftists. Wow

All that matters is the words of the Constitution. If it does not say it specifically in the Constitution then it is not constitutional, have you not been reading the thread, that is the edict that TNH has put forth. Nobody shall differ from it

 

[meaner gene]

The right to bear arms

The right to assemble

The right to vote

Just to name a few

He can also have his inalienable rights taken from him. Including life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.

 

[TNHarley]

The judge gives the sentence. And where do the states get the power to take away peoples rights? Where does it say in the Constitution they can do that?

Doesnt matter. You were wrong.

Which means they are being denied their 2nd Amendment rights while in prison as they cannot bear arms while in there.

They are in a place that doesnt allow weapons. Doesnt mean the "lose their right" I dont lose my right while walking into a school without my AR.

 

[meaner gene]

Where does the judicial branch get the power to just take away someones rights?

US Constitution Article III

 

[TNHarley]

^ Idiot.

You're asking because of Trump, but don't want Trump discussed.

This is LITERALLY a case by case thing.

There is no general answer.

It depends on the situation.

Dear God but conservatives can be morons...

Constitutional rights arent a case by case basis, you statist fucking retard.
And im not a conservative, shithead.

 

[Harpy Eagle]

Doesnt matter. You were wrong.

Where does it say in the Constitution states can take away people's rights?

 

[TNHarley]

All that matters is the words of the Constitution. If it does not say it specifically in the Constitution then it is not constitutional, have you not been reading the thread, that is the edict that TNH has put forth. Nobody shall differ from it

The govts power comes from the constitution, you stupid dipshit.
They can get more by amendments.
Thats how it works. Not imaginary bullshit like you idiots put forth.

 

[TNHarley]

Where does it say in the Constitution states can take away people's rights?

It doesnt. I didnt say I agree.

 

[TNHarley]

US Constitution Article III

You said that, but it doesnt say judges can just take away peoples rights.
Try harder.

 

[Harpy Eagle]

It doesnt. I didnt say I agree.

So, now we are back to you being against people put in prison as they lose rights while in there.

 

[MinTrut]

Constitutional rights arent a case by case basis, you statist fucking retard.

You can't be this stupid...

And im not a conservative, shithead.

Oh - you CAN be this stupid; my bad.

But yeah, the "rights" you speak of are not absolute.

 

[meaner gene]

The judge doesnt do that, the states do.
They dont lose their guns going to jail, they cant have them in jail.
Voting isnt a constitutional right.
Try harder.

The judge grants it's judicial powers to the judge exclusively. Not the executive, not the legislative.

What kind of twisted logic is they don't lose their guns, they can't have them in jail?

Is that like they don't lose their free speech, they just aren't allowed to say anything.

 

[meaner gene]

Doesnt matter. You were wrong.

They are in a place that doesnt allow weapons. Doesnt mean the "lose their right" I dont lose my right while walking into a school without my AR.

Actually it does.

When the law prohibits exercise of a right within a certain location, that right is taken from you, in that location. If you can't exercise a right, you have no right.

Take the statute of limitations in civil cases. After a certain period of time, you lose your constitutional right to a jury trial.

“In suits at common law, where the value in controversy shall exceed twenty dollars, the right of trial by jury shall be preserved,

Another right the government legally removes from people.

 

[BrokeLoser]

Where does it say in the Constitution states can take away people's rights?

They can’t…legally and or constitutionally.
Government is empowered to make and enforce laws that “promote the general welfare” of the people and laws that protect the peoples rights….Government is not empowered to stop people from talking.
Come on people, this shit is so simple.

 

[BrokeLoser]

Start with the 6th amendment right to an "impartial jury"

You can't have an impartial jury that's been corrupted by someones speech. Hence all things necessary to guarantee an impartial jury must be done by the government.

There is no such thing as an impartial jury….your propaganda arms CNN and social media makes sure that’s the case and you know it.
Can you stick a gag order on them?

 

[Harpy Eagle]

They can’t…legally and or constitutionally.

Ok, so since they cannot take away rights, legally and or constitutionally, they cannot put anyone in prison as that takes away the rights of the one being detained.

I am glad you made yourself clear on that.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

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..

“Are gag orders constitutional?”

It’s not a ‘yes’ or ‘no’ question.

Like other aspects of the law, it depends on the specific circumstances:

‘…a court will scrutinize any gag order under the right of free expression, protected by the First Amendment, and applies a heavy presumption against its constitutional validity, as with any prior restraint. See Carroll v. Princess Anne. In Nebraska Press Ass’n v. Stuart, the U.S. Supreme Court considered the following factors in analyzing the constitutionality of a gag order: “(a) the nature and extent of pretrial news coverage; (b) whether other measures would be likely to mitigate the effects of unrestrained pretrial publicity; and (c) how effectively a restraining order would operate to prevent the threatened danger [of an unfair trial for defendant].” In that case, however, the Court found that a lower court’s gag order was justified because publicity of alleged shocking crimes would be widespread and would likely reach a jury, impairing the defendant’s right to a fair trial.’

gag order

www.law.cornell.edu