Are gag orders constitutional?

[Harpy Eagle]

How do words hurt people?

Indeed, which is why we need to get rid of slander and libel laws!

Are you with me?

Oh wait, you lack the balls to say one way or the other...never mind

 

[Marener]

How do words hurt people?

People can easily be intimidated by words which could bias the proceedings.

 

[TNHarley]

Stochastic terrorism is a real thing and the state has a vested interest in keeping the jury pool untainted.

So people can lose constitutional rights because someone has an opinion something might happen?

 

[TNHarley]

Indeed, which is why we need to get rid of slander and libel laws!

Are you with me?

Oh wait, you lack the balls to say one way or the other...never mind

I clearly stated earlier, that the only thing should come from words would be civil problems. Like a suit. Not criminal, like what a gag order could lead to.

 

[TNHarley]

People can easily be intimidated by words which could bias the proceedings.

So people should lose constitutional rights because someone might be a sissy?

 

[konradv]

So people can lose constitutional rights because someone has an opinion something might happen?

There is no constitutional right to taint the jury pool or intimidate people.

 

[Harpy Eagle]

So people can lose constitutional rights because someone has an opinion something might happen?

Interesting thought, in the thread about the Maine shooter is is being put forth his 2nd amendment rights should have been taken away based on his words and what people thought might happen.

Do you agree with them?

 

[Votto]

The ACLU has said the gag order on Trump is not constitutional.

LOL.

https://www.cnn.com/2023/10/25/politics/aclu-trump-gag-order-2020-election/index.html

 

[TNHarley]

Interesting thought, in the thread about the Maine shooter is is being put forth his 2nd amendment rights should have been taken away based on his words and what people thought might happen.

Do you agree with them?

I know it happened, but I dont know any details about it.

 

[dblack]

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..

It seems that there's the basic assumption that, as soon as someone is indicted for a crime, they lose at least some of their rights. And they don't regain them until they're found not guilty, or found guilty and resolved whatever penalties are involved. That kind of sucks, if you haven't actually done anything, but I don't really see how the justice system can work without that temporary loss of rights.

 

[TNHarley]

It seems that there's the basic assumption that, as soon as someone is indicted for a crime, they lose at least some of their rights. And they don't regain them until they're found not guilty, or found guilty and resolved whatever penalties are involved. That kind of sucks, if you haven't actually done anything, but I don't really see how the justice system can work without that temporary loss of rights.

So does that mean the justice system needs work, or the right to talk need work?

 

[dblack]

So does that mean the justice system needs work, or the right to talk need work?

Yes.

 

[konradv]

Interesting thought, in the thread about the Maine shooter is is being put forth his 2nd amendment rights should have been taken away based on his words and what people thought might happen.

Do you agree with them?

Perhaps not words per se, but state of mind. That assumes prior incidents and probably court proceedings and psych evaluations. If that doesn’t happen, how do you stop a shooter?

 

[Marener]

So people should lose constitutional rights because someone might be a sissy?

There are competing interests. The interest in fair judicial proceedings is greater the interest in shitposting on Twitter for a few months.

 

[TNHarley]

There are competing interests. The interest in fair judicial proceedings is greater the interest in shitposting on Twitter for a few months.

Im not debating specifics, like certain people, or venues.
What you are implying is its fine to lose rights because someone has an opinion someone could be a sissy.

 

[Harpy Eagle]

I know it happened, but I dont know any details about it.

The shooter checked himself into a mental ward and told them he heard voices and wanted to shoot up his base.

Are those words enough to have rights suspended?

 

[TNHarley]

The shooter checked himself into a mental ward and told them he heard voices and wanted to shoot up his base.

Are those words enough to have rights suspended?

shoot up his base? What do you mean? Military?

 

[Harpy Eagle]

shoot up his base? What do you mean? Military?

Yeah, he was a Reservist.

 

[kaz]

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..

Democrat judges are attempting to gag Trump to cover their own crimes Gag orders done by political hacks who are trying to end free elections are to be ignored. The Constitution is meant to protect our freedom, not protect government crimes as Democrats are doing repeatedly

 

[kaz]

Do you disagree with slander and libel laws?

Not when they are warped to end free elections as the Democrats are trying to do