Are gag orders constitutional?

[MaryL]

Democrats and progressive liberals have a habit of just positing something. Anything, Transsexualism or BLM "All cops are bastards. Who needs proof? The earth is flat, the moon is made of green cheese. Proof? Liberals don't need no stinking' proof.

 

[jc456]

Like fire in a crowded movie house?

How’s a gag order similar?

 

[otto105]

How’s a gag order similar?

The former 1-term fuckup is standing on street in front screaming to kill the owner of it.

 

[jc456]

The former 1-term fuckup is standing on street in front screaming to kill the owner of it.

And you have that link?

 

[WinterBorn]

So a gag order is a public safety issue? Hahaha

No. The law against yelling "Fire" in a crowded theater is a safety issue. Do try to keep up.

 

[WinterBorn]

How’s a gag order similar?

It is an instance in which your Freedom of Speech rights are over-ridden.

 

[jc456]

It is an instance in which your Freedom of Speech rights are over-ridden.

Why?

 

[jc456]

No. The law against yelling "Fire" in a crowded theater is a safety issue. Do try to keep up.

How’s a gag order a CNN public safety issue again?

 

[WinterBorn]

Why?

Various reasons. National Security. A judge determines it necessary. Public safety.

Do you really not understand this simple concept?

 

[WinterBorn]

How’s a gag order a CNN public safety issue again?

Try again. I said nothing resembling that.

 

[WinterBorn]

How’s a gag order a CNN public safety issue again?

I specifically said that yelling Fire in a theater was a public safety issue. I even corrected you when you tried this before.

And where did CNN come into this? We are discussing a commonly used too at the judges disposal, and whether it is constitutional. CNN has no relevance.

 

[WinterBorn]

from: What Is a Gag Order? Definition, Examples and More

"What is the goal of a gag order?
The Sixth Amendment protects the right to “a speedy and public trial by an impartial jury.” This sometimes aligns with the First Amendment right to access and publish information, including about criminal trials. At other times, the two amendments come into conflict, as too much publicity surrounding a case can create unfairness:

• Potential jurors could be prejudiced by statements in the media or online.
• Witnesses could be threatened or harassed and even pressured to change their testimony.
• Confidential or proprietary trade secrets might be released.

A gag order seeks to prevent public statements that could cause harm to the overall case or people involved that cannot be undone."

 

[dudmuck]

from: What Is a Gag Order? Definition, Examples and More

"What is the goal of a gag order?
The Sixth Amendment protects the right to “a speedy and public trial by an impartial jury.” This sometimes aligns with the First Amendment right to access and publish information, including about criminal trials. At other times, the two amendments come into conflict, as too much publicity surrounding a case can create unfairness:

• Potential jurors could be prejudiced by statements in the media or online.
• Witnesses could be threatened or harassed and even pressured to change their testimony.
• Confidential or proprietary trade secrets might be released.

A gag order seeks to prevent public statements that could cause harm to the overall case or people involved that cannot be undone."

 

[jc456]

I specifically said that yelling Fire in a theater was a public safety issue. I even corrected you when you tried this before.

And where did CNN come into this? We are discussing a commonly used too at the judges disposal, and whether it is constitutional. CNN has no relevance.

Gag order is a violation of the first amendment. You used yelling fire in a theater as a reason. I’m looking for you to explain how they are the same? One is a public safety issue and the other is what?

 

[dudmuck]

Not necessarily.

A gag order violates civil rights

anyone under pre-trial release has limited civil rights. The limits are due to stuff like: flight risk, actions or speech that could poison jury pool or intimidate witnesses.

The court issues conditions of release; if these conditions are violated, then no release --> back to jail.

 

[WEATHER53]

No one says it is absolute. Post the post number that statement was made?

Witness or not threats are legal. If something happens to the threatened party then you will be a suspect
Otherwise “i will beat your ass” won’t get you arrested, won’t get you fined and in fact if the person you made the statement to then initiates physical contact with you it is They who arecin trouble.
You emotionally fragile and fearful just need to stay home and quit trying to fakely seek out the ways that you feel “threatened”

 

[WinterBorn]

Gag order is a violation of the first amendment. You used yelling fire in a theater as a reason. I’m looking for you to explain how they are the same? One is a public safety issue and the other is what?

No, I used yelling fire in a crowded theater was an example of limits on your 1st amendment rights.

The reasons for a gag order are in post #252.

 

[WinterBorn]

Witness or not threats are legal. If something happens to the threatened party then you will be a suspect
Otherwise “i will beat your ass” won’t get you arrested, won’t get you fined and in fact if the person you made the statement to then initiates physical contact with you it is They who arecin trouble.
You emotionally fragile and fearful just need to stay home and quit trying to fakely seek out the ways that you feel “threatened”

Threats are, in fact illegal.

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 no, I am not emotionally fragile or fearful. We are having a discussion of the constitutionality of gag orders. Which led to examples of speech that is not covered by the 1st amendment or is an exception to it. And my making the point (repeatedly) that the 1st amendment's right to free speech is not absolute.

 

[WinterBorn]

That always seems like a silly thing to have to point out. All rights are limited. The old saw "your right to swing your fist ends at the tip of my nose" kinda covers it.

Well stated. So many do not understand that.

 

[WEATHER53]

Threats are, in fact illegal.

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 no, I am not emotionally fragile or fearful. We are having a discussion of the constitutionality of gag orders. Which led to examples of speech that is not covered by the 1st amendment or is an exception to it. And my making the point (repeatedly) that the 1st amendment's right to free speech is not absolute.

Sorry doll baby but jails are not crowded due to verbal threats
Libs want speech censored that they don’t feel good about. They cloak that sentiment in public safety or jury issues but that’s fake. Trump is verbosely successful and libs are timid so they want him, and those who support him, to be SILENCED