Are gag orders constitutional?

A threat to someone’s life or well being is a criminal threat you jackass
Nope
Stop hitting my dog or I will hurt you bad is absolutely permissible. I will break your neck if you don’t is absolutely permissible
 
You’re wrong. “Threat” has an actual meaning.

You tend to ignore actual definitions.

A robber makes the threat in order to illegally coerce you to relinquish a right you have (like the right to keep your own cash or possessions). A responding cop uses the same phrase without any illegality involved.
So the post I linked is wrong? According to who?
 
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 :rolleyes:
Again, please leave trump out of this. I know TDS is a serious mental condition, but damn..
Yes, of course they are. Criminal defendants lose some of their rights.
 
You didn’t define criminal! One doesn’t get to say any threat is criminal without a law. Still waiting
Yes the “criminal threat “ game using the self fulfilling prophecy ruse.
Lib loons-are threatening thoughts also illegal?
 
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 :rolleyes:
Again, please leave trump out of this. I know TDS is a serious mental condition, but damn..

Trump made most of his employees sign nondisclosure agreements... that didn't hold up. Must be different when it's court ordered.
 
from: Criminal Threats: Laws and Penalties

"Criminal Threats: Laws and Penalties​

Making criminal threats comes with serious consequences, even if you didn't plan to carry out the threat.​

By Rebecca Pirius, Attorney
Updated May 26, 2022
A criminal threat occurs when someone threatens to kill or physically harm someone else. In some states, this crime might be referred to as terroristic threats, threats of violence, malicious harassment, menacing, or another term.

Criminal Threats vs. Free Speech
Even though the Constitution guarantees the right of free speech, that right is not an absolute one. The law has long recognized specific limitations when it comes to speech, such as prohibitions against slander and libel. In some situations, speech can even constitute a crime, such as in the case of criminal threats."
I also posted the relevant link

The tards just ignore it and pretend to be law scholars
 
I also posted the relevant link

The tards just ignore it and pretend to be law scholars
Where does the constitution mention the government having this power? Or was it just made up by the SC?
 
Trump made most of his employees sign nondisclosure agreements... that didn't hold up. Must be different when it's court ordered.
NDAs are civil issues. You break those, you can get sued. Breaking gag orders are criminal.
 
Weak minded pearl clutching couch fainting Karens have found a way to beat their puny fists on thinkers chests via the internet .
The outcome of a threat is likely illegal. The issuance of one absolutely is not.



from: The 5 Elements Of A Criminal Threat | Quinnan Law

"Elements Of A Criminal Threat​

Five elements need to be present in any threat of violence you make against another person to be charged with a crime:

  1. You willfully threatened another person with the intent of seriously injuring or killing that person
  2. The threat was made verbally, in writing or through electronic communication
  3. You meant for your statement to be understood as a threat, regardless of if you were able to or intended to carry the threat out
  4. You had the present ability to carry out the threat
  5. A reasonable person would have feared for his or her own safety or the safety of his or her immediate family if you made the threat to him or her"





Making a threat is illegal. I am sure there are variances, but it still holds true.

Even if you just look at threats towards a gov't official, it still constitutes an example that the 1st amendment is not inviolate.
 
In Trumps case there was no threat but rather an insult or making fun of . Lib loons feel those are crimes also
Let’s do a test. If Winter won’t stop making false claims Im gonna slap him upside the head.
Now Winter-report me for my illegal thread comment and call law enforcement also. Case closed
 
In Trumps case there was no threat but rather an insult or making fun of . Lib loons feel those are crimes also
Let’s do a test. If Winter won’t stop making false claims Im gonna slap him upside the head.
Now Winter-report me for my illegal thread comment and call law enforcement also. Case closed

First I would address the claim I made false claims.

Next I would invite you to try. :cool:
 


from: The 5 Elements Of A Criminal Threat | Quinnan Law

"Elements Of A Criminal Threat​

Five elements need to be present in any threat of violence you make against another person to be charged with a crime:

  1. You willfully threatened another person with the intent of seriously injuring or killing that person
  2. The threat was made verbally, in writing or through electronic communication
  3. You meant for your statement to be understood as a threat, regardless of if you were able to or intended to carry the threat out
  4. You had the present ability to carry out the threat
  5. A reasonable person would have feared for his or her own safety or the safety of his or her immediate family if you made the threat to him or her"





Making a threat is illegal. I am sure there are variances, but it still holds true.

Even if you just look at threats towards a gov't official, it still constitutes an example that the 1st amendment is not inviolate.
More projective bullshit . Your 1. States make a threat “with full intent to carry it out”. That’s cart before the house. Who judges what the intent will turn out to be or if there even is Any outcome behind the words???
You all simply want to criminalize the vocalizations that bring you discomfort
 

Forum List

Back
Top