Are gag orders constitutional?

[TNHarley]

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..

 

[sparky]

How can ones speech be silenced with threat of hefty fines, jail, imprisoned to their home etc for talking about the government?

do you own a bullhorn ? ~S~

 

[Votto]

 

[Votto]

This just in, Trump avoids gag order with doll.

 

[TNHarley]

This just in, Trump avoids gag order with doll.

View attachment 848860

damnit votto!

 

[Harpy Eagle]

Are gag orders constitutional?

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.

 

[TNHarley]

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.

So you lose the first amendment, because of the sixth? Because of ones person opinion on what might influence a jurist?

 

[SeaMajor7]

LAWFARE

 

[Harpy Eagle]

So you lose the first amendment, because of the sixth? Because of ones person opinion on what might influence a jurist?

You do not lose your first amendment, you just have it limited for a period of time.

Do you disagree with slander and libel laws? They go against the 1st.

Do you think the freedom to practice your religion should have no limitations?

 

[TNHarley]

You do not lose your first amendment, you just have it limited for a period of time.

Where does the constitution give the government the power to do that? To limit our rights when it feels like it?

 

[Votto]

You do not lose your first amendment, you just have it limited for a period of time.

Do you disagree with slander and libel laws? They go against the 1st.

Do you think the freedom to practice your religion should have no limitations?

Twitter and social media silenced Trump before the gag order and that was Ok as well

Isn't that right. A sitting President of the United States unable to communicate with voters except for only what the media wanted to tell them about Trump

This is your utopia.

 

[Independentthinker]

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 abuse of power by Democrats is off the scale. There should be no such things as obvious threats and intimidation or going public with information that would jeopardize the integrity of the facts of the case BUT calling out a judge and his stooges as being the biased fucks that they are is a first amendment right, even if some whackos go too far and threaten the judges and others, as long as Trump doesn't specifically request violence be done. Democrats are just fine with stirring the pot calling for people to fight like hell, etc. and even attacking Supreme Court justices to the point they get death threats.

 

[WorldWatcher]

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..

Yes because they are a condition of pre-trial release to which you agree.

If not, don't take pre-trial release and sit in jail awaiting trial.

WW

 

[Harpy Eagle]

Where does the constitution give the government the power to do that? To limit our rights when it feels like it?

Do you disagree with slander and libel laws?

 

[TNHarley]

Yes because they are a condition of pre-trial release to which you agree.

If not, don't take pre-trial release and sit in jail awaiting trial.

WW

link

 

[Votto]

Where does the constitution give the government the power to do that? To limit our rights when it feels like it?

My guess is the General welfare clause

They use it for anything they want to get done, like bloating the entire government into a Nanny State

However, the author of the General Welfare clause says otherwise.

"If Congress can employ money indefinitely to the general welfare, and are the sole and supreme judges of the general welfare, they may take the care of religion into their own hands; they may appoint teachers in every State, county and parish and pay them out of their public treasury; they may take into their own hands the education of children, establishing in like manner schools throughout the Union; they may assume the provision of the poor; they may undertake the regulation of all roads other than post-roads; in short, every thing, from the highest object of state legislation down to the most minute object of police, would be thrown under the power of Congress. ... Were the power of Congress to be established in the latitude contended for, it would subvert the very foundations, and transmute the very nature of the limited Government established by the people of America." — James Madison

So as we see, the Left does not care. They care nothing about the Constitution since they ignore the intent of those that wrote the document.

Therefore, this conversation is pointless.

 

[berg80]

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 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.

 

[Harpy Eagle]

Twitter and social media silenced Trump before the gag order and that was Ok as well

Impossible for either to silence Trump.

Isn't that right. A sitting President of the United States unable to communicate with voters except for only what the media wanted to tell them about Trump

If that were true you might have a point. The POTUS has 100s of ways to communicate with the voters.

 

[Harpy Eagle]

The abuse of power by Democrats is off the scale. There should be no such things as obvious threats and intimidation or going public with information that would jeopardize the integrity of the facts of the case BUT calling out a judge and his stooges as being the biased fucks that they are is a first amendment right, even if some whackos go too far and threaten the judges and others, as long as Trump doesn't specifically request violence be done. Democrats are just fine with stirring the pot calling for people to fight like hell, etc. and even attacking Supreme Court justices to the point they get death threats.

 

[TNHarley]

You mother fuckers are illiterate