Are gag orders constitutional?

[BrokeLoser]

Ok, so since they cannot take away rights, legally and or constitutionally, they cannot put anyone in prison as that takes away the rights of the one being detained.

I am glad you made yourself clear on that.

hahaha…I noticed you conveniently missed the bulk of the context.
”Government is empowered to make and enforce laws that ’promote the general welfare‘ of the people and laws that protect the peoples rights.”

Dig deeper bud…you’re almost there.

 

[BrokeLoser]

“Are gag orders constitutional?”

It’s not a ‘yes’ or ‘no’ question.

Like other aspects of the law, it depends on the specific circumstances:

‘…a court will scrutinize any gag order under the right of free expression, protected by the First Amendment, and applies a heavy presumption against its constitutional validity, as with any prior restraint. See Carroll v. Princess Anne. In Nebraska Press Ass’n v. Stuart, the U.S. Supreme Court considered the following factors in analyzing the constitutionality of a gag order: “(a) the nature and extent of pretrial news coverage; (b) whether other measures would be likely to mitigate the effects of unrestrained pretrial publicity; and (c) how effectively a restraining order would operate to prevent the threatened danger [of an unfair trial for defendant].” In that case, however, the Court found that a lower court’s gag order was justified because publicity of alleged shocking crimes would be widespread and would likely reach a jury, impairing the defendant’s right to a fair trial.’

gag order

www.law.cornell.edu

So the imposition of a gag order is not unconstitutional, however, a gag order can be unconstitutional?

 

[Harpy Eagle]

Government is empowered to make and enforce laws that ’promote the general welfare‘ of the people and laws that protect the peoples rights.”

Yep, and a gag order on an individual does just that. No different than pre-trail confinement for someone deemed to dangerous to be let out while waiting trial. But I suppose you are against that as well.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

Not sure how I can impede on someone elses rights by expressing my rights.
Doesnt make much sense does it? It certainly wouldnt be my fault some juror became biased because of something I said outside the courtroom. The constitution agrees, or it would have fucking mentioned that

It would be the court’s fault for not subjecting you to a gag order given the likelihood of you saying something reckless and irresponsible resulting in a biased juror.

You would be at liberty to challenge the constitutionality of the order.

And if the gag order is upheld as constitutional requiring your silence, your First Amendment rights will have not been violated.

 

[meaner gene]

They can’t…legally and or constitutionally.
Government is empowered to make and enforce laws that “promote the general welfare” of the people and laws that protect the peoples rights….Government is not empowered to stop people from talking.
Come on people, this shit is so simple.

Not so simple. The government chips away at nearly every constitutional right, by coming up with a good reason to do so. Such as to listen into private conversations without a warrant, because they suspect you of terrorism. To prevent the next 9-11 and thousands killed.

 

[BrokeLoser]

Yep, and a gag order on an individual does just that. No different than pre-trail confinement for someone deemed to dangerous to be let out while waiting trial. But I suppose you are against that as well.

But I suppose you are against that as well.

I’m “against” anything and all things unconstitutional just like all good real core Americans are….you should be as well.
A gag order of any kind does not and can not promote the general welfare of the people nor can it protect the peoples rights.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

So, putting people in prison is not taking away their rights?

Rights can’t be ‘taken away’ – hence their being inalienable.

They can be subject to limits and restrictions, of course.

For example, child pornography is not entitled to First Amendment protections; limits on free speech are Constitutional provided they’re content-neutral, such as time, place, and manner restrictions.

And someone who is sent to prison has not had his rights ‘taken away’; he was afforded due process – a warrant was issued to search his home for drugs (4th Amendment), he was afforded the right to remain silent (5th Amendment), and he was provided a lawyer at no expense (6th Amendment).

Having been lawfully found guilty of his crime, he’s sent to prison – in full possession of his rights, however severely limited and restricted.

 

[hjmick]

They're legal, and I'm sure people have argued against them in court, so...

 

[BrokeLoser]

Not so simple. The government chips away at nearly every constitutional right, by coming up with a good reason to do so. Such as to listen into private conversations without a warrant, because they suspect you of terrorism. To prevent the next 9-11 and thousands killed.

That’s the premise to this whole thread… When government tramples on our rights and ignorant Father Government loving statists eat it up the trampling doesn’t become constitutional just because the sheep say it does.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

Pretty sure being locked up violates rights.

Only if one is denied due process, such as a search without a warrant.

Otherwise, those afforded their comprehensive due process who are tried, convicted, and sent to prison have had no rights ‘violated,’ no rights ‘taken away.’

 

[BrokeLoser]

They're legal, and I'm sure people have argued against them in court, so...

We keep hearing “they’re legal” but NOBODY can show us the empowering doctrine that makes it so. Why do you think that might be?

 

[Harpy Eagle]

I’m “against” anything and all things unconstitutional just like all good real core Americans are….you should be as well.

So, does that mean you are against pre-trial confinement for those deemed a danger to society?

A simple yes or no will suffice.

 

[Harpy Eagle]

Having been lawfully found guilty of his crime, he’s sent to prison – in full possession of his rights, however severely limited and restricted.

So they can vote form prison?

They can carry a gun in prison?

They can have the right to assemble in prison?

Or are all these rights removed while they are in prison?

 

[BrokeLoser]

So, does that mean you are against pre-trial confinement for those deemed a danger to society?

A simple yes or no will suffice.

NO
Such a judgement call is based on the amount of compelling evidence and not the opinion of one single Blactivist or the like.

 

[Harpy Eagle]

NO
Such a judgement call is based on the amount of compelling evidence and not the opinion of one single Blactivist or the like.

Same holds true for a gag order, and a gag order can be appealed and is given due process.

They are basically the same thing, one just has more restrictions included.

 

[hjmick]

We keep hearing “they’re legal” but NOBODY can show us the empowering doctrine that makes it so. Why do you think that might be?

All I know is, the Supreme Court determined they are constitutionally acceptable.

 

[sparky]

You folks do realize our Constitution is a living doc, right?

~S~

 

[meaner gene]

It doesnt. I didnt say I agree.

Actually the constitution says states can take away peoples right to vote if they have been involved in insurrection or other crime. Amendment 14.

 

[BrokeLoser]

Same holds true for a gag order, and a gag order can be appealed and is given due process.

They are basically the same thing, one just has more restrictions included.

Negative….a gag order can not fall under the general welfare clause.
A gag order of any kind does not and can not promote the general welfare of the people nor can it protect the peoples rights.

 

[BrokeLoser]

All I know is, the Supreme Court determined they are constitutionally acceptable.

Can you link us to that ruling please?