Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
hahaha…I noticed you conveniently missed the bulk of the context.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.
So the imposition of a gag order is not unconstitutional, however, a gag order can be unconstitutional?“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
Government is empowered to make and enforce laws that ’promote the general welfare‘ of the people and laws that protect the peoples rights.”
It would be the court’s fault for not subjecting you to a gag order given the likelihood of you saying something reckless and irresponsible resulting in a biased juror.Not sure how I can impede on someone elses rights by expressing my rights.
Doesnt make much sense does it? It certainly wouldnt be my fault some juror became biased because of something I said outside the courtroom. The constitution agrees, or it would have fucking mentioned that
Not so simple. The government chips away at nearly every constitutional right, by coming up with a good reason to do so. Such as to listen into private conversations without a warrant, because they suspect you of terrorism. To prevent the next 9-11 and thousands killed.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.
Yep, and a gag order on an individual does just that. No different than pre-trail confinement for someone deemed to dangerous to be let out while waiting trial. But I suppose you are against that as well.
I’m “against” anything and all things unconstitutional just like all good real core Americans are….you should be as well.But I suppose you are against that as well.
Rights can’t be ‘taken away’ – hence their being inalienable.So, putting people in prison is not taking away their rights?
That’s the premise to this whole thread… When government tramples on our rights and ignorant Father Government loving statists eat it up the trampling doesn’t become constitutional just because the sheep say it does.Not so simple. The government chips away at nearly every constitutional right, by coming up with a good reason to do so. Such as to listen into private conversations without a warrant, because they suspect you of terrorism. To prevent the next 9-11 and thousands killed.
Only if one is denied due process, such as a search without a warrant.Pretty sure being locked up violates rights.
We keep hearing “they’re legal” but NOBODY can show us the empowering doctrine that makes it so. Why do you think that might be?They're legal, and I'm sure people have argued against them in court, so...
I’m “against” anything and all things unconstitutional just like all good real core Americans are….you should be as well.
Having been lawfully found guilty of his crime, he’s sent to prison – in full possession of his rights, however severely limited and restricted.
NOSo, does that mean you are against pre-trial confinement for those deemed a danger to society?
A simple yes or no will suffice.
NO
Such a judgement call is based on the amount of compelling evidence and not the opinion of one single Blactivist or the like.
We keep hearing “they’re legal” but NOBODY can show us the empowering doctrine that makes it so. Why do you think that might be?
Actually the constitution says states can take away peoples right to vote if they have been involved in insurrection or other crime. Amendment 14.It doesnt. I didnt say I agree.
Negative….a gag order can not fall under the general welfare clause.Same holds true for a gag order, and a gag order can be appealed and is given due process.
They are basically the same thing, one just has more restrictions included.
Can you link us to that ruling please?All I know is, the Supreme Court determined they are constitutionally acceptable.
