Are gag orders constitutional?

[BrokeLoser]

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.

I've seen defendants removed from court rooms for obstructing trials. And even brought in in chains and jump suits.

Everybody knows this, but it is not politically expedient at times to admit to such

The Constitution explicitly restricts the federal government to 18 enumerated powers.
Which of the enumerated powers grants the Feds the right to revoke ones 1A right?

 

[Harpy Eagle]

It also doesnt say that we can be searched without a warrant under certain conditions.

And it does no say I cannot kill someone during the practice of my religion, yet we both agree that is not allowed

It does no say me and my 100 closest friends cannot block I70 during rush hour while exercising our right to gather together, but we both (I think) agree it is not allowed.

It does not say I cannot make false and damaging statements about, yet we both agree they should not be allowed.

It does not say I cannot make terroristic threats with my words against you, but you seem to agree those are not allowed

 

[StoneCold]

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..

Are YOU allowed to threaten witnesses, the prosecutor, the court staff, even if not indicted? Seriously? Now what would you think if a Dem politician was the one issuing the threats.
Think hard. Don't hurt yourself.

 

[Harpy Eagle]

Which of the enumerated powers grants the Feds the right to revoke ones 1A right?

Which of the enumerated powers grants the Govt the right to revoke ones 2A right?

Yet we do it every time we put someone in jail. We do it to convicted felons even after they are out of jail.

 

[bendog]

But how do words conflict with the sixth? They dont, IMO.
And what part of the constitution gives the judicial branch the power to decide which, and who, loses rights?

read your OWN damn link. roflmao

 

[BluesLegend]

The Constitution explicitly restricts the federal government to 18 enumerated powers.
Which of the enumerated powers grants the Feds the right to revoke ones 1A right?

Our first amendment rights have been under attack ever since the internet destroyed government's control of information.

 

[BrokeLoser]

Which of the enumerated powers grants the Govt the right to revoke ones 2A right?

Yet we do it every time we put someone in jail. We do it to convicted felons even after they are out of jail.

How do “we” get away with that bullshit?

 

[BrokeLoser]

Our first amendment rights have been under attack ever since the internet destroyed government's control of information.

EXACTLY….weird how that works huh?

 

[BackAgain]

What do you mean by that?

If a prosecutor starts trying his case in public (as they often do) by speaking to the press and the media, the citizens get a one sided premature view of the strength of the prosecutor’s case. This means that many folks called to jury duty have already formulated a preconceived notion about a defendant’s alleged “guilt” before they get selected and before they hear one word of evidence. This can undermine a defendant’s right to get a fair trial.

It isn’t that much different if a defense team engages in some effort to similarly taint the prospective jurors, just from the other direction.

Just as a defendant has a right to a fair trial, the prosecution has a right to obtain an impartial jury. And courts are supposed to help make sure that the “playing field” is relatively level.

When a major crime takes place, most of us feel a sense of relief when the press announces that an arrest has been made. But just because Jimmy Bob has gotten arrested doesn’t mean that the “right man” has been caught. We can’t always avoid our reaction to the news. But that does raise the risk that whoever is chosen to be a “fair and impartial” juror may not have already predetermined the outcome.

That’s part of what we mean by “tainting” the jury pool.

 

[Harpy Eagle]

How do “we” get away with that bullshit?

I know right, we should allow those in prison to exercise their 2nd amendment rights!

 

[BluesLegend]

EXACTLY….weird how that works huh?

Government permitted us to exercise our first amendment rights, so long as they controlled and spun the narrative. Government hates that opposing views are available to the public.

 

[WEATHER53]

The biased judge can’t afford the providing of facts
Schumers girlfriend is not a threat nor intimidation. More word changing attempt by lib loons

 

[Marener]

People who are facing criminal charges can have their rights restricted.
Please learn to forum properly. TIA

So is your problem with gag orders limited to civil trials?

You didn’t say that in the OP.

 

[BrokeLoser]

I know right, we should allow those in prison to exercise their 2nd amendment rights!

Does that mean you can’t explain how/why Father Government holds the power to trample on our rights at will?
Are you simply saying they do and they should?

 

[BackAgain]

By the way, whether I ultimately agree with the OP doesn’t matter. I say his thread question is a damn good one and it’s worth discussion, research and serious consideration.

 

[konradv]

Lefist Logic:
”Only CNN and social media should have the right to “taint the jury pool”.

If they are. someone needs to bring the suit. As it is, Trump’s the one facing an order. I call your objection rightist deflection.

 

[Harpy Eagle]

Does that mean you can’t explain how/why Father Government holds the power to trample on our rights at will?

There are these things called "laws", perhaps you have heard of them.

 

[meaner gene]

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..

The simple answer is that any constitutional right is limited by a compelling government interest. The most obvious is you can't use your right of speech to incite a riot, or create a life threatening panic. Nor can you use it to compel someone to commit murder or other infamous crime. The government has a good reason to keep people from using speech in those manners.

Similarly, the government is constitutionally required to provide a fair and public trial to chose accused of crimes. And similarly that right would be abridged by the intimidation of witnesses, or corruption of the jury pool.

As long as the gag order is "narrowly tailored" they are absolutely constitutional.

 

[Rigby5]

Since nobody else wants to answer, I will.

Yes, I think they are.

The 6th Amendment protects the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury. The purpose of the Gag Order is to ensure that final part.

The Right to Free Speech is not absolute, if it were we would not have laws against slander and libel. It would not be against the law to be sitting on a plane and say you have a bomb on you. Most people agree with these restrictions.

I would say a gag order during a trial is in the same vein as the restrictions above.

Arbitrary gag orders are totally illegal, but what is legal depends on what the result is to individual rights.
If there is someone who can be illegally harmed by statements, then gag orders can be legal.
For example, if a defendant is issuing threats, offering rewards for crimes, violating the privacy of other, etc.

Anything can be legal if necessary in order to protect the rights of others.

But what is the purpose of a gag order during a trial?
It depends on if the trial is legal or not.
If the trial is illegal and abusive, then a gag order is illegal.
Since there is no jury, the judge can not claim it is to prevent jury contamination.
Since there are no juveniles, it can't be to protect them.
I can not see any legal justification for a gag order without an obvious reason like that.

 

[Couchpotato]

The gag orders issued thus far have been specifically tailored to prevent Don from making threats against members of the court. Not generically "talking about the government." The judges who have issued them have noted all the areas of speech that remain protected by the 1st A. But what you need to recognize is anyone who has been indicted immediately forfeits certain rights. So their speech may be under greater restriction than an ordinary citizen. So yes, they are constitutional.

I don’t think you automatically forfeit any rights simply because some DA gets an indictment against you. Would you care to share which rights exactly and where in the law/Constitution it allows for that?