Are gag orders constitutional?

[jc456]

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..

Fk no! All illegal.

Freedom of speech last I looked

 

[BrokeLoser]

You folks do realize our Constitution is a living doc, right?

~S~

Yep….and it only takes a two-thirds vote and ratification by three-fourths of the state legislatures to change it. Simple shit

 

[jc456]

So long as the political opposition controls the news outlets that reach the majority of voters, your assertion is false.

For example, after the last election about 20% of voters said they would not have voted for Biden had they known about the Hunter Biden scandal which was censored from major sources of social media, a story that was later proven to be legit as they censored it for being fake news.

Poll: 17% of Biden Voters Would Have Abandoned Him if They Knew About Stories the Media Censored

A new poll finds that 17 percent of Biden voters would have voted differently if they’d been given fair media coverage of both candidates.

www.westernjournal.com

Without free access to an unbiased press, democracy does not really exist.

In other words, democracy does not really exist.

Can’t go against the narrative

 

[berg80]

In at least four lengthy social media posts on Thursday, Trump ripped Engoron as a “tyrannical and unhinged” and “fully biased Trump Hater” who “should be ashamed of himself” for his handling of the case.

“HE HAS GONE CRAZY IN HIS HATRED OF ‘TRUMP,’” wrote the former president, who also railed against New York Attorney General Letitia James, his ex-attorney Michael Cohen and a New York Times reporter.

Trump’s 2024 presidential campaign, meanwhile, sought to capitalize on the case by criticizing it in multiple fundraising pleas as a “sham trial” led by a “Democrat judge” who “continues to harass” Trump.

Trump attacks judge in NY fraud case who fined him $15,000

The latest attacks show Trump turning to the court of public opinion to fight his mounting legal challenges.

www.cnbc.com

Remember when people were saying Don would grow in to the role of being president and stop acting like a petulant, intemperate buffoon. As it turns out, not so much.

 

[meaner gene]

Rights can’t be ‘taken away’ – hence their being inalienable.

They can be subject to limits and restrictions, of course.

For example, child pornography is not entitled to First Amendment protections; limits on free speech are Constitutional provided they’re content-neutral, such as time, place, and manner restrictions.

And someone who is sent to prison has not had his rights ‘taken away’; he was afforded due process – a warrant was issued to search his home for drugs (4th Amendment), he was afforded the right to remain silent (5th Amendment), and he was provided a lawyer at no expense (6th Amendment).

Having been lawfully found guilty of his crime, he’s sent to prison – in full possession of his rights, however severely limited and restricted.

Glass half full / glass half empty. Is a restricted or limited right, still a right?
If a tree falls and there's no one to hear, does it still make a noise?
Which came first, the chicken or the egg?

 

[meaner gene]

All I know is, the Supreme Court determined they are constitutionally acceptable.

Can you link us to that ruling please?

If the supreme court said gag orders were unconstitutional, no judge would be able to issue one. Since judges continue to issue gag orders, they have to have support from the supreme court and hence from the constitution.

You'll have to search for the particular case law.

 

[Unkotare]

Yep….and it only takes a two-thirds vote and ratification by three-fourths of the state legislatures to change it. Simple shit

You keep whining about a particular Amendment but you never lift a weak finger to do a damn thing about it.

 

[BrokeLoser]

You keep whining about a particular Amendment but you never lift a weak finger to do a damn thing about it.

The 14th is here to stay as this nation is fucked over by far too many bleeding heart globalists like yourself….Now, I’m actually looking forward to watching Mexico’s people burn this fucking filthy brown shithole to the fucking ground….I can’t wait to laugh in your face while I sit in a nice, clean, safe, united all white nation in my retirement years.
You fucked yourselves BIG-TIME!

 

[Unkotare]

The 14th is here to stay ...

So you admit all your impotent whining is nothing but that. Empty blowhard weakling.

 

[Unkotare]

... bleeding heart globalists like yourself…....

Still wrong, lying loser.

 

[Unkotare]

....….I can’t wait to laugh in your face ....

You wouldn't do anything in anyone's face in the real world, coward.

 

[Unkotare]

...., united all white nation ....

Where is that, coward?

 

[WinterBorn]

So you lose the first amendment, because of the sixth? Because of ones person opinion on what might influence a jurist?

So you think the 1st Amendment gives absolute freedom of speech?

Try yelling fire in a theater.
Try threatening someone in front of witnesses.
Try telling someone about some classified material you worked with.
Try revealing company secrets after you signed an NDA.

 

[Care4all]

Where does the constitution give the government the power to do that? To limit our rights when it feels like it?

When you are under arrest for a crime...

 

[YoursTruly]

In the murder case of the McMichaels and Ahmaud Arbery or GA. The toxicology of Arbery proved that Arbery had not been taking his schizophrenia medication. And also had THC in his system. Schizophrenia is worsened when people smoke pot. I think the media knew he had pot in his system, but wasn't allowed to release the info. This was an important piece of evidence that would explain Arbery's action. Like why he ran (before the McMichael's even knew he was back in that house)


He (the judge) ruled that the prosecution could let the jury listen to recorded phone calls made by the jailed McMichaels, and issued a limited gag order on trial lawyers not to comment on inadmissible evidence, including evidence they "should reasonably know" would be ruled inadmissible at trial.


B. Gag orders on the press

• -Overview-​

  
  The Supreme Court repeatedly has made clear that courts may rarely, if ever, prevent the press from reporting on court proceedings and documents. The Court ruled in Nebraska Press Assn. v. Stuart, 427 U.S. 539, 559 (1976) that “prior restraints on speech and publication are the most serious and the least tolerable infringement on First Amendment rights” and are presumed to be unconstitutional. A gag order is a “most extraordinary remedy” that may be used only in “exceptional cases” where “the evil that would result from the reportage is both great and certain and cannot be mitigated by less intrusive measures.” CBS Inc. v. Davis 510 U.S.1315, 1317 (1994) (Blackmun, J., in chambers). Prior restraints on covering court proceedings and records may indeed never be permissible, because “[w]hat transpires in the court room is public property. . . . Those who see and hear what transpired can report it with impunity.” Craig v. Harney, 331 U.S.367, 374 (1947).
  Indeed, courts have refused to gag coverage of court proceedings even when a media organization is a party to the underlying case. The court in Freedom Communications v. Superior Court, 167 Cal. App. 4th 150, 152 (2008), thus overturned “an order enjoining [a media company] from reporting on trial testimony in a case in which it is the defendant.” But in Seattle Times Company v. Rhinehart, 467 U.S.20, 33 (1984), the Supreme Court noted that a newspaper party could not publish information it obtained in discoverybecause “pretrial depositions and interrogatories are not public components of a civil trial.”
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  

 

[TNHarley]

You can't be this stupid...

Oh - you CAN be this stupid; my bad.

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

Where does the constitution say that, boot licker?

 

[TNHarley]

You folks do realize our Constitution is a living doc, right?

~S~

By the amendment process.

 

[TNHarley]

Actually the constitution says states can take away peoples right to vote if they have been involved in insurrection or other crime. Amendment 14.

Voting isnt a constitutionall right.

 

[kaz]

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

So you don't understand "the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed."

What about that is unclear to you?

 

[TNHarley]

So you don't understand "the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed."

What about that is unclear to you?

You are talking to the guy that thinks its perfectly fine to search peoples houses without a warrant. Tell them to keep their mouth shut about the govt etc.
Its useless to try to get him to understand anything.
Its a common problem with statists.