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.
OMGSo you’re saying that the Constitution doesn’t give the government that power but they have it and should.
That’s inconsistent with your previous statements
The First Amendment protects freedom of speech. The Constitution also protects the right to a fair trialLets 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
Again, please leave trump out of this. I know TDS is a serious mental condition, but damn..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
So where does a judge get the power to suspend someone elses rights on possibilities and maybes of not ensuring a fair trial? It is their responsibility to ensure it, but not at the cost of my rights.The First Amendment protects freedom of speech. The Constitution also protects the right to a fair trial
It is recognized that indicted individuals cannot be allowed to malign and/or threaten witnesses and officers of the court and their families in the absence of a credible legal defense. A fair trial is only ensured if all parties involved are constrained from spewing such incendiary remarks that are irrelevant to the judicial process.
If an individual so disciplined feels that it is his right to malign and threaten witnesses and officers of the court and their families, he can appeal and present his case all the way to the Supreme Court,
I supposed so. Free speech is number one!Better than the SCOTUS?
Hey, we’re in the presence of Greatness
Do you believe that, e.g., an indicted drug lord is free to malign and threaten jurors, witnesses, officers of the court, and their families in an attempt to evade conviction? Does his being indicted grant him such license?So where does a judge get the power to suspend someone elses rights on possibilities and maybes of not ensuring a fair trial? It is their responsibility to ensure it, but not at the cost of my rights.
where is the link that states the law that allows judges to limit others free speech and rights?The First Amendment protects freedom of speech. The Constitution also protects the right to a fair trial
It is recognized that indicted individuals cannot be allowed to malign and/or threaten witnesses and officers of the court and their families in the absence of a credible legal defense. A fair trial is only ensured if all parties involved are constrained from spewing such incendiary remarks that are irrelevant to the judicial process.
If an individual so disciplined feels that it is his right to malign and threaten witnesses and officers of the court and their families, he can appeal and present his case all the way to the Supreme Court,
that's a word salad that says absolutely nothing. Got nothing else huh?Do you believe that, e.g., an indicted drug lord is free to malign and threaten jurors, witnesses, officers of the court, and their families in an attempt to evade conviction? Does his being indicted grant him such license?
If the accused believes that a gag order precludes - rather that ensures - the right to a free trial, he can challenge the order and explain to a higher court how his maligning and threatening witnesses, officers of the court, and their families constitutes a legal legal defense.
I'll try to make it simple for you.that's a word salad that says absolutely nothing. Got nothing else huh?
That is all already illegal! Has nothing to do with a gag order.I'll try to make it simple for you.
Does an accused have an unlimited right to malign and threaten witnesses, officers of the court, and their families, or can limits be placed upon his doing so by the court?
The best way to show that you are an emotional basket case coward is to try and have authority silence those you can’t handle hearing from .
A gag order has no bearing on presenting a defense.
And they silence anyone investigating them. They own the courts as already statedDemocrats operate in darkness because they are doing something wrong and are hiding from accountability
So where does a judge get the power to suspend someone elses rights on possibilities and maybes of not ensuring a fair trial? It is their responsibility to ensure it, but not at the cost of my rights.
If you are trying to claim that gag orders that stop an accused's maligning and threatening witnesses and officers of the court and their families are illegal, no higher court has ever so ruled, but the accused is still free to appeal such an order to a higher court.That is all already illegal! Has nothing to do with a gag order.
BTW, the fbi threatened a witness in the Idaho 4 case, there’s that. Where’s law officials? Psst, there’s a gag order there.
If you are trying to claim that gag orders that stop an accused's maligning and threatening witnesses and officers of the court and their families are illegal, no higher court has ever so ruled, but the accused is still free to appeal such an order to a higher court.
Being obtuse or just ignorant? The SC adjudicates disputes when they are not clearly enumerated in the Constitution. Like its ruling that gag orders, properly constructed, are constitutional.So the govt can just make up its own powers. Basically, it can just do whatever it wants, using your logic.
Thats like when you people use the general welfare clause to mean what it doesnt actually mean.
If we use the boot lickers "interpretation" the govt could decree that old people being mass murdered would be ok as long as they say its for the general welfare.
You people need to wake the fuck up.
It’s illegal. Why would it go to a higher court?If you are trying to claim that gag orders that stop an accused's maligning and threatening witnesses and officers of the court and their families are illegal, no higher court has ever so ruled, but the accused is still free to appeal such an order to a higher court.
Where did the supreme court get that power? I dont remember that being in the enumerated powers of the constitution.Being obtuse or just ignorant? The SC adjudicates disputes when they are not clearly enumerated in the Constitution. Like its ruling that gag orders, properly constructed, are constitutional.
