Are gag orders constitutional?

[Harpy Eagle]

I don’t think you automatically forfeit any rights simply because some DA gets an indictment against you.

Can one be jailed based on an indictment, pending the outcome of the trial?

 

[konradv]

Democrat judges are attempting to gag Trump to cover their own crimes Gag orders done by political hacks who are trying to end free elections are to be ignored. The Constitution is meant to protect our freedom, not protect government crimes as Democrats are doing repeatedly

Gag orders were around before your election fantasies, genius.

 

[Couchpotato]

Should someone be able to sacrifice babies as an act of following their religion, or are you ok with the Govt limiting their rights in that instance?

The obvious difference being me spouting off at the mouth doesnt directly cause injury to anyone else nor does it abridge their rights. The same can’t be said for sacrificing a baby regardless of the reason

 

[Rigby5]

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.

But since all the 91 indictments are clearly illegal and intended instead to abuse the election, violence against these illegal courtroom acts is justified.

And I disagree that it can be legal to "forfeit certain rights" over just an indictment.
Especially in this case, where legislation intended for securities exchanges, is being illegally applied to a loan application.
That prosecution is clearly illegal and should be stopped by public pressure.

 

[Couchpotato]

Can one be jailed based on an indictment, pending the outcome of the trial?

Not automatically.

 

[meaner gene]

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?

Nobody is having their 1st amendment rights revoked. But they can have them limited to only lawful speech,

 

[BrokeLoser]

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.

How penetrable is the “right to free press” and section 230?

 

[Harpy Eagle]

Not automatically.

But it is possible, correct?

 

[WEATHER53]

Constitution rights have logical societal and safety parameters but are unlimited in their organuzation
For example no biased, addled judge can declare that observing a photo and stating “ Schumers girlfriend “ is illegal speech

 

[Rigby5]

Gag orders were around before your election fantasies, genius.

Gag orders can be legal, but only if necessary in order to protect the rights of someone.
Since this prosecution is not legal, then is should not be defended and the gag order is illegal.
There is no law saying you have to be accurate when applying for a loan.
The law clearly says banks can NOT use a valuation from the applicant, and must conduct an independent appraisal.
The statute the prosecutor is using was intended for securities exchanges and not a loan application.
So the prosecutor and judge both are criminals.
They deserve being arrested for their outrageous crimes.

 

[BrokeLoser]

Nobody is having their 1st amendment rights revoked. But they can have them limited to only lawful speech,

hahaha….awww, the ole’ “lawful speech” bit.
Who decides what defines lawful speech and where in the 1A is lawful speech mentioned and which enumerated power grants the federal government the right to define said speech?

 

[konradv]

How penetrable is the “right to free press” and section 230?

The judges would know and rule accordingly.

 

[Couchpotato]

But it is possible, correct?

Sure. But there has to be some compelling reason to deny bail and a judge has to rule on it. So not automatically.

 

[konradv]

Gag orders can be legal, but only if necessary in order to protect the rights of someone.
Since this prosecution is not legal, then is should not be defended and the gag order is illegal.
There is no law saying you have to be accurate when applying for a loan.
The law clearly says banks can NOT use a valuation from the applicant, and must conduct an independent appraisal.
The statute the prosecutor is using was intended for securities exchanges and not a loan application.
So the prosecutor and judge both are criminals.
They deserve being arrested for their outrageous crimes.

Circular logic. Who ruled on the legality of the indictments?

 

[Rigby5]

But it is possible, correct?

Of course it is "possible".
But you have to prove the gag order is necessary in order to protect the rights of someone.
When the court is violating the law, then a gag order clearly is even more of a violation.

 

[BrokeLoser]

The judges would know and rule accordingly.

Your propaganda arms are heavily protected and you know it.

 

[Couchpotato]

Of course it is "possible".
But you have to prove the gag order is necessary in order to protect the rights of someone.
When the court is violating the law, then a gag order clearly is even more of a violation.

That has nothing to do with whether gag orders are in and of themselves constitutional

 

[BlindBoo]

Of course they are. Just like the laws that protect judges and jury from threats. The Dirty Don "Corleone's" Gapping Maw surely can be a serious threat.

 

[konradv]

Your propaganda arms are heavily protected and you know it.

You’ll just have to accept it. We’re a republic. Mob rule like we saw on J6 is abhorrent.

 

[Harpy Eagle]

Sure. But there has to be some compelling reason to deny bail and a judge has to rule on it. So not automatically.

And gag orders are not automatic either. But both are legal and are seen as Constitutional.