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.
That’s your spin. It’s pretty obvious you’re not interested in a rational conversation.Im not debating specifics, like certain people, or venues.
What you are implying is its fine to lose rights because someone has an opinion someone could be a sissy.
Good lord. And then actually went on a shooting spree. Damn..
Wouldnt that be considered a terroristic threat?
How are democrats trying to do that?Not when they are warped to end free elections as the Democrats are trying to do
How are democrats trying to do that?
When a person is making public statements designed to influence the jury pool, influence or threaten witnesses or jurists, threaten court staff, prosecutors or others associated with a matter before the court the right to a fair trial is being threatened.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
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
No, because the party in question is clearly trying to deny a fair trial.So you lose the first amendment, because of the sixth? Because of ones person opinion on what might influence a jurist?
Good lord. And then actually went on a shooting spree. Damn..
Wouldnt that be considered a terroristic threat?
Lefist Logic:There is no constitutional right to taint the jury pool or intimidate people.
You think we should prosecute people for thought crimes?The shooter checked himself into a mental ward and told them he heard voices and wanted to shoot up his base.
Are those words enough to have rights suspended?
You think we should prosecute people for thought crimes?
No offense but the answer to your question is in your link.So you lose the first amendment, because of the sixth? Because of ones person opinion on what might influence a jurist?
Yes, true. But you are saying you are about to kill a bunch of people.They are just words and words cannot hurt anyone, remember?
Threatening people is different than just words. Its a promise of physical violence.When a person is making public statements designed to influence the jury pool, influence or threaten witnesses or jurists, threaten court staff, prosecutors or others associated with a matter before the court the right to a fair trial is being threatened.
This is your basic mob tactic.
Gag orders are constitutional but their reach is limited.
Yes, true. But you are saying you are about to kill a bunch of people.
Thats a big difference than having a gag order put on you for talking shit about the government or something.
I didnt say that we should.But this is not about a specific gag order, remember.
This is about the concept of a gag order.
Seems if we can lock someone up or take their 2nd amendment rights away from them for their words, then the basic concept of a gag order is not unconstitutional.
No const right is without limitations, because as the thread shows, the First Amendment can, and does, conflict with the Sixth Amendment as well as the Second, and there may be other conflicts I've not seen or thought of.But this is not about a specific gag order, remember.
This is about the concept of a gag order.
Seems if we can lock someone up or take their 2nd amendment rights away from them for their words, then the basic concept of a gag order is not unconstitutional.