Are gag orders constitutional?

[WinterBorn]

So? It’s pushing a narrative that the defendant can’t respond to

So? If it happened before the gag order was issued and before the trial started, it has nothing to do with a gag order.

 

[jc456]

So? If it happened before the gag order was issued and before the trial started, it has nothing to do with a gag order.

It stopped the defendant from responding. You still are acting stupid

 

[WEATHER53]

Once again, the thread is not about Trump. The OP specifically said as much.

Once again your incorrect, wishful interpretation and deflection means zip
Of course the threat title is referencing that gag order imposed on Trump

 

[jc456]

You don't know what you are talking about, there.

Remember the last 3 pages of you whining about lawyers leaking stuff?

That's what the defense team did, in that case. And the judge removed them because of it.

No they didn’t. There was never a hearing!! Oops. Doesn’t matter, the defendant wants them. Judge can’t violate his amendment rights

 

[WinterBorn]

It stopped the defendant from responding. You still are acting stupid

Yes it did. And I have said it was wrong.

But no, it did not have anything to do with a gag order. How could it, the info was released before the trial and before the gag order was issued.

 

[WinterBorn]

Once again your incorrect, wishful interpretation and deflection means zip
Of course the threat title is referencing that gag order imposed on Trump

I am going by what the OP said.

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..

I put the relevant parts in BOLD.

 

[WEATHER53]

I am going by what the OP said.



I put the relevant parts in BOLD.

That derision is not a dismissal of Trump as being the reference point crux of the gag crap
Can we gag you and would that be legal?

 

[WinterBorn]

That derision is not a dismissal of Trump as being the reference point crux of the gag crap
Can we gag you and would that be legal?

If I am ever on trial, you can get the judge to issue a gag order. No problem.

 

[kaz]

And I am responding to you.

 

[jc456]

Yes it did. And I have said it was wrong.

But no, it did not have anything to do with a gag order. How could it, the info was released before the trial and before the gag order was issued.

It does now, pools tainted

 

[WinterBorn]

It does now, pools tainted

Yes it is. But that is not because of the gag order. You cannot have a gag order before a trial starts.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

Gag orders are to stack the deck

If a Democratic politician on trial were subject to a gag order – you and others on the blind partisan right would be all for gag orders.

 

[TNHarley]

I am going by what the OP said.



I put the relevant parts in BOLD.

Thank you. AGAIN this is a general inquiry about gag orders. What is going on with Trump has nothing to do with this. It happening to him is why it is being discussed, but he is not WHAT is being discussed.

 

[j-mac]

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?

Inalienable rights are personal rights held by an individual which are not bestowed by law, custom, or belief, and which cannot be taken or given away, or transferred to another person12345.Examples of inalienable rights include4:

• Speech
• Worship
• Travel
• Self-defense
• Privacy

 

[Harpy Eagle]

Inalienable rights are personal rights held by an individual which are not bestowed by law, custom, or belief, and which cannot be taken or given away, or transferred to another person12345.Examples of inalienable rights include4:

• Speech
• Worship
• Travel
• Self-defense
• Privacy

So, people in prison have the right to travel? Or do they have that right taken away?

 

[j-mac]

So, people in prison have the right to travel? Or do they have that right taken away?

Don't be obtuse....

 

[Harpy Eagle]

Don't be obtuse....

Answer the question.

 

[j-mac]

Answer the question.

Do you believe convicted prisoners should be allowed to travel freely?

 

[Harpy Eagle]

Do you believe convicted prisoners should be allowed to travel freely?

Of course not, thus they had their Inalienable Right of Travel, and privacy, at a minimum taken away....thus it seems that Inalienable Rights can indeed be taken away.

 

[j-mac]

Of course not, thus they had their Inalienable Right of Travel, and privacy, at a minimum taken away....thus it seems that Inalienable Rights can indeed be taken away.

Convicted criminals have made a conscious decision to give up their rights the moment they decided to commit a crime that carries a prison sentence...However, if they do their time, and complete their sentence, including their probation, then they have their right to travel back.....

"Human rights laws do not give criminals the right to enjoy the same freedoms as the rest of us. The Act specifically says that people convicted of crimes can, and sometimes must, be deprived of their liberty, and that they should not be released early if they present a serious danger to others."

www2.amnesty.org.uk/files/human_rights_act_myths.pdf

Now, can you tie a convicted criminal's lack of rights to the gag order placed on Trump?