Are gag orders constitutional?

[YoursTruly]

The question is, the constitutionality of it. Does the government actually have the authority to do that.
Clearly, the constitution does not give them that power, or someone would have shown where it does.

The 1st and the 5th covers pretty much everything. And I don't see any constitutionality in gag orders.

 

[jc456]

Completely missing the point. If you cannot yell 'Fire' in a crowded theater, your 1st Amendment rights are not absolute. That you can yell in an empty theater does not change that.

Just like you cannot reveal classified information.

What’s that have to do with gag order?

 

[otto105]

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..

Threatening judges, court officers and jury members is not free speech.

 

[WinterBorn]

What’s that have to do with gag order?

It shows that the 1st Amendment is not absolute. And that the gov't CAN, in fact, restrict speech.

 

[WinterBorn]

Completely missing the point. If you cannot yell 'Fire' in a crowded theater, your 1st Amendment rights are not absolute. That you can yell in an empty theater does not change that.

Just like you cannot reveal classified information.

jc456, you called my post Fake News. But you did not post anything. Nothing I said is fake news.

 

[jc456]

It shows that the 1st Amendment is not absolute. And that the gov't CAN, in fact, restrict speech.

No it doesn’t. You’re mistaken

 

[WinterBorn]

No it doesn’t. You’re mistaken

You can be prosecuted for it. Then yes, it is the gov't restricting your right to free speech. Just like if you reveal classified information, you can be prosecuted for what you say.

You are the one who is mistaken.

 

[jc456]

You can be prosecuted for it. Then yes, it is the gov't restricting your right to free speech. Just like if you reveal classified information, you can be prosecuted for what you say.

You are the one who is mistaken.

If there’s an actual fire it’s not. You’re misaligned In your discussion

 

[WinterBorn]

If there’s an actual fire it’s not

True. But that does not change the fact that yelling "Fire" in a crowded theater, when there is no fire, will get you arrested.

 

[jc456]

True. But that does not change the fact that yelling "Fire" in a crowded theater, when there is no fire, will get you arrested.

Not necessarily.

A gag order violates civil rights

 

[WinterBorn]

Not necessarily.

A gag order violates civil rights

Obviously it does not.

 

[jc456]

Obviously it does not.

It’s why I and others say it is illegal

 

[WinterBorn]

It’s why I and others say it is illegal

Only because you are still trying to claim the 1st Amendment right of free speech is absolute. I have shown it is not.

Gag orders have been used for a long time. They are only to prevent dissemination of information in a court of law.

 

[jc456]

Only because you are still trying to claim the 1st Amendment right of free speech is absolute. I have shown it is not.

Gag orders have been used for a long time. They are only to prevent dissemination of information in a court of law.

First you need to be honest, and you can’t!

 

[WinterBorn]

First you need to be honest, and you can’t!

Name one dishonest thing I have said? Just one and I will quit this site.

Answer one question. Can you say anything you want to anyone, even divulging state secrets or information covered by an NDA you signed? Can you?

 

[jc456]

Name one dishonest thing I have said? Just one and I will quit this site.

Answer one question. Can you say anything you want to anyone, even divulging state secrets or information covered by an NDA you signed? Can you?

Sure, you saying yelling fire in a theater is like a gag order.

With no explanation. Dishonest

 

[WinterBorn]

Sure, you saying yelling fire in a theater is like a gag order.

With no explanation. Dishonest

It was an example of restrictions that can be placed on Free Speech. And actually, I did provide an explanation. More than once.

So now, how about answering my question?

 

[WEATHER53]

Criminal Threats: Laws and Penalties

Threatening someone with harm or death can result in serious penalties. It's a crime even if you don't intend to carry out the threat.

www.criminaldefenselawyer.com

And reread what I said when I included threats as an example of your free speech not being absolute.

You said threats are illegal. Nothing about “absolute” I stated that is incorrect and now it’s goalpost moving from you

 

[WEATHER53]

Threatening judges, court officers and jury members is not free speech.

Making fun of them is free speech and legal
The “feeling intimidated” is of course a feeling that they want to hold others responsible for instead of themselves.

 

[WEATHER53]

It was an example of restrictions that can be placed on Free Speech. And actually, I did provide an explanation. More than once.

So now, how about answering my question?

Also if it is on fire then no issue there.
If it’s empty, no issue there
It’s a paltry example to try and legitimize carte blanche speech restrictions over others “discomfort”