Are gag orders constitutional?

[Rigby5]

Gag orders are put in place so that the prosecution and defendants present their case through sworn testimony. This prevents both sides from using the media to influence jurors.

There are no jurors in this case, and the people have a right to be totally informed.

 

[konradv]

Then what? Let’s say they killed everyone insode the capitol. Do they just take over? Seriously. How does that play out in your mind? Do you really believe everyone in the US woukd just shrug and say whelp guess this group of idiots is in charge now…..

Who knows what was planned. That’s why we have trials and cooperating witnesses.

 

[Couchpotato]

Seems to be the topic of the thread.

It was the originally topic, which has gone far afield since then and not what I commented on.

 

[TNHarley]

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 pol.

Sounds like the judicial system needs work. Unconstitutionally taking away ones right isnt justifiable.

 

[meaner gene]

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?

This is why the constitution requires someone to be indicted by a grand jury. Because the indictment carries restrictions on constitutional rights. Such as someone indicted for a serious felony, can have his 2nd amendment rights suspended. His right of free association limited, Even his 1st amendment speech limited. They can be incarcerated without bail, which certainly infringes on many of their constitutional rights.

 

[Couchpotato]

Who knows what was planned. That’s why we have trials and cooperating witnesses.

What? You don’t actually believe there was some path to the US being overthrown because some morons rioted at the capital building do you?

 

[konradv]

We don’t accept mob rule.

Riots are mob rule behavior. Were you equally concerned with the summer riots by BLM and associates a couple of years ago?

They never attacked the seat of government, threatening the lives of the Speaker and Veep.

 

[TNHarley]

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

You didn’t say that in the OP.

Of course not. I was responding to what YOU said.
I dont believe in guilty until proven innocent. Ergo, losing constitutional rights over it is bullshit.

 

[Rigby5]

If you wish to argue that inmates should be allowed to exercise their 2nd amendment rights, you go right ahead, I will not stop you

Inmates do have 2nd amendment rights.
They are well protected by high walls and armed guards.
There is zero risk to their lives.

But it is denying ex-felons defensive firearms and voting that is clearly illegal.

 

[TNHarley]

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.

Thank you, sir.

 

[Harpy Eagle]

Of course not. I was responding to what YOU said.
I dont believe in guilty until proven innocent. Ergo, losing constitutional rights over it is bullshit.

So, it is, in your opinion, to jail people during their trial if they are seen as a danger to society?

 

[TNHarley]

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.

Where does the Constitution say that?

 

[Marener]

Of course not. I was responding to what YOU said.
I dont believe in guilty until proven innocent. Ergo, losing constitutional rights over it is bullshit.

So explain pretrial detention. If someone is on trial for mass murder, should they be allowed to be free?

 

[Rogue AI]

Are we not guaranteed freedom to practice our religion? Are you saying you are ok with limits on that right?

Not if it infringes on the rights of others. You can practice whatever demonic rites you want with yourself, you cannot apply them to others unable or unwilling to consent. Our rights are individual rights, not group rights. How do people not know this?

 

[Harpy Eagle]

Inmates do have 2nd amendment rights.
They are well protected by high walls and armed guards.
There is zero risk to their lives.

But it is denying ex-felons defensive firearms and voting that is clearly illegal.

The 2nd does not say a damn thing about being protected or risk to anyone lives.

 

[BrokeLoser]

This is why the constitution requires someone to be indicted by a grand jury. Because the indictment carries restrictions on constitutional rights. Such as someone indicted for a serious felony, can have his 2nd amendment rights suspended. His right of free association limited, Even his 1st amendment speech limited. They can be incarcerated without bail, which certainly infringes on many of their constitutional rights.

We know how the mechanism works….but tell us how the Feds have been empowered to create such mechanisms….SHEESH people, this is a simple request….
Come on Golfing Gator draw us a straight line form our Constitution to these illegally manufactured processes….you can’t, so you won’t.

 

[Rawley]

Of course they are. Just like the laws that protect judges and jury from threats.

You should pass that bit of wisdom onto Comrade Garland

 

[TNHarley]

So, you are saying that someone that has been found guilty of a crime should not be sentenced by the judge?

Really?

Or are you saying that people in jail should be allowed to possess fire arms?

I was saying felons should be allowed to own weapons.

 

[konradv]

Libel and slander are speech that are prosecutable crimes. But calling people names, even 'crook' or 'corrupt' or 'dishonest' or whatever does not rise to the level of libel and slander unless the person falsifies the specific action that makes a person a 'crook' or 'corrupt' or 'dishonest' or whatever or otherwise illegally sullies a person's reputation or does him/her other material harm.

A gag order from a judge intended to prevent a person from expressing a negative opinion about anything or anybody in my opinion is a direct violation of free speech and therefore unconstitutional and illegal.

Free speech isn’t absolute. In this case concern for the safety of court officers and witnesses and the integrity of the jury pool outweigh the right.

 

[Harpy Eagle]

Not if it infringes on the rights of others.

Now we are getting somewhere, the same holds true for the other parts of the 1st as well, correct?