Are gag orders constitutional?

[Kondor3]

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

Then the government cannot prohibit you from yelling "Fire" in a crowded theatre or punish you for doing so?

 

[jc456]

No, I used yelling fire in a crowded theater was an example of limits on your 1st amendment rights.

The reasons for a gag order are in post #252.

Yet you never would have posted such a thread, if Trump wasn't subject to a gag order. You've had 11 years to have brought this up before now.

Where?

 

[WinterBorn]

Where?

Where what?

 

[jc456]

Where what?

What you said wasn’t there? Dumped your brains again? Can’t follow a thread? Figures

 

[jc456]

Threats are, in fact illegal.

Criminal Threats: Laws and Penalties

Threatening someone with harm or death can result in serious penalties. It's a crime even if you don't intend to carry out the threat.

www.criminaldefenselawyer.com

And no, I am not emotionally fragile or fearful. We are having a discussion of the constitutionality of gag orders. Which led to examples of speech that is not covered by the 1st amendment or is an exception to it. And my making the point (repeatedly) that the 1st amendment's right to free speech is not absolute.

Your title says criminal threats. Not all threats are criminal.

 

[jc456]

I never said they were. But there ARE exceptions for the free speech portion of the 1st amendment. That is just a fact.

No one is silencing Trump on everything. He is just specifically forbidden from discussing the actual trial he is involved in.

And you still haven’t said why gag orders don’t violate free speech. Post 252 didn’t have shit in it

 

[WinterBorn]

What you said wasn’t there? Dumped your brains again? Can’t follow a thread? Figures

My mistake. Wrong post number. Here is that post in its entirety.

from: What Is a Gag Order? Definition, Examples and More

"What is the goal of a gag order?
The Sixth Amendment protects the right to “a speedy and public trial by an impartial jury.” This sometimes aligns with the First Amendment right to access and publish information, including about criminal trials. At other times, the two amendments come into conflict, as too much publicity surrounding a case can create unfairness:

• Potential jurors could be prejudiced by statements in the media or online.
• Witnesses could be threatened or harassed and even pressured to change their testimony.
• Confidential or proprietary trade secrets might be released.

A gag order seeks to prevent public statements that could cause harm to the overall case or people involved that cannot be undone."

 

[WinterBorn]

Your title says criminal threats. Not all threats are criminal.

But criminal threats ARE, in fact, illegal. Not sure what kind of threat is not criminal.

 

[jc456]

My mistake. Wrong post number. Here is that post in its entirety.

You’re forgiven.

Now, how do comments affect a case exactly?

 

[WinterBorn]

And you still haven’t said why gag orders don’t violate free speech. Post 252 didn’t have shit in it

You have never said whether you think the right to Free Speech, in the 1st amendment, is absolute and inviolate.

 

[WinterBorn]

You’re forgiven.

Now, how do comments affect a case exactly?

You forgave me, but you didn't read what I posted.

• Potential jurors could be prejudiced by statements in the media or online.
• Witnesses could be threatened or harassed and even pressured to change their testimony.
• Confidential or proprietary trade secrets might be released.

 

[jc456]

You have never said whether you think the right to Free Speech, in the 1st amendment, is absolute and inviolate.

I never said it was. I thought I already said that

 

[jc456]

You forgave me, but you didn't read what I posted.

• Potential jurors could be prejudiced by statements in the media or online.
• Witnesses could be threatened or harassed and even pressured to change their testimony.
• Confidential or proprietary trade secrets might be released.

Potential jurors exist for any case. That’s a cop out. Confidential or proprietary trade secrets? Gag orders are when a prosecutor has no evidence. Evidence is what drives our legal system, not comments in the paper or tv . Funny, gag orders are only against a defendant, never the other parties who too could influence potential jurors

 

[WinterBorn]

I never said it was. I thought I already said that

Well if I am going to have to repeat things over and over, you get to do the same.

And if you do not believe that the 1st amendment is not absolute and inviolate, you should understand that a gag order is constitutional.

 

[WinterBorn]

Potential jurors exist for any case. That’s a cop out. Confidential or proprietary trade secrets? Gag orders are when a prosecutor has no evidence. Evidence is what drives our legal system, not comments in the paper or tv . Funny, gag orders are only against a defendant, never the other parties who too could influence potential jurors

Gag orders are not just used for defendents.

from: 3 Things to Know About Gag Orders | Spatz Law Firm, PL

"2. Who is Affected By a Gag Order?
Gag orders are directed at both the defendant and prosecuting parties, the lawyers involved, the jurors, and any witnesses that may be testifying during the trial. These parties must adhere to the gag order as a way to restrict what information about the case may become available to media outlets in both civil and criminal cases. Court personnel who are in the courtroom during the trial are also typically expected to follow suit during a gag order."


All of the parties in a trial can be under a gag order.

The idea that gag orders are used only by prosecutors when they have no case, is simply ridiculous. It is your opinion, and not based on the actions in our legal system.

 

[jc456]

Gag orders are not just used for defendents.

from: 3 Things to Know About Gag Orders | Spatz Law Firm, PL

"2. Who is Affected By a Gag Order?
Gag orders are directed at both the defendant and prosecuting parties, the lawyers involved, the jurors, and any witnesses that may be testifying during the trial. These parties must adhere to the gag order as a way to restrict what information about the case may become available to media outlets in both civil and criminal cases. Court personnel who are in the courtroom during the trial are also typically expected to follow suit during a gag order."


All of the parties in a trial can be under a gag order.

The idea that gag orders are used only by prosecutors when they have no case, is simply ridiculous. It is your opinion, and not based on the actions in our legal system.

It doesn’t stop others

 

[WinterBorn]

It doesn’t stop others

It stops them or they get fined and jailed.

 

[jc456]

It stops them or they get fined and jailed.

No news station or political parties. You’re just wrong. Social media

 

[WinterBorn]

No news station or political parties. You’re just wrong. Social media

Then talk to the cops or the judicial system. The topic is whether gag orders are constitutional. Not whether they always work perfectly.

 

[Lesh]

And they ARE. Of course legal