Are gag orders constitutional?

No, they were taken away. You are innocent until proven guilty.
Yes, but once arrested for a crime, you can be held in prison until the trial, or you can be released with restriction terms applied.....like you can't travel, you can't commit another crime however small, you can't taint a jury pool, you can't threaten or try to intimidate witnesses etc etc etc. or you can be put in jail to await your trial and your bail can be revoked.

It is simply a FACT that you lose certain rights temporarily, until a trial verdict. SC already decided constitutionality with a few cases giving precedent.
 
Yes, but once arrested for a crime, you can be held in prison until the trial, or you can be released with restriction terms applied.....like you can't travel, you can't commit another crime however small, you can't taint a jury pool, you can't threaten or try to intimidate witnesses etc etc etc. or you can be put in jail to await your trial and your bail can be revoked.

It is simply a FACT that you lose certain rights temporarily, until a trial verdict. SC already decided constitutionality with a few cases giving precedent.
Yes, I know that is the shitty process. But those rights are not relinquished. Use words correctly.
 
Yes, I know that is the shitty process. But those rights are not relinquished. Use words correctly.

what word would you use then for the "temporary agreement to give up some rights" when released on bail?
 
what word would you use then for the "temporary agreement to give up some rights" when released on bail?
Your rights were already taken away when you got arrested. That is the part i was commenting on. The very first part of her post.
 
How could it be? You havent been convicted of anything

Yet the Constitution allows for bail, which means that it also allows for you to be locked up for the mere act of being charged with a crime, before you are convicted of anything.
 
It is my opinion that a gag order is just a lesser version of pre-trail confinement.

There, now you can answer
Ok, well then, it should be noted that the loss of travel of someone indicted for a criminal offense, could pose a flight risk, which is why their right to travel could be curtailed...Just as a gag order is usually used to protect tainting of a potential jury.

However, in Donald Trump's case, this gag order by this judge is because SHE doesn't like Trump's rhetoric surrounding this sham of a prosecution...So, IMHO, she is trying everything she can to stack the deck against Trump...Including gaging his right to free speech...
 
Your rights were already taken away when you got arrested. That is the part i was commenting on. The very first part of her post.
There is the concept of probable cause. Society has the right to protect itself from obvious instances of crime, even in the abscence of a finsl judgment.
 
Ok, well then, it should be noted that the loss of travel of someone indicted for a criminal offense, could pose a flight risk, which is why their right to travel could be curtailed...Just as a gag order is usually used to protect tainting of a potential jury.

Correct. So we both seem to agree that a gag order is constitutional.

However, in Donald Trump's case, this gag order by this judge is because SHE doesn't like Trump's rhetoric surrounding this sham of a prosecution...So, IMHO, she is trying everything she can to stack the deck against Trump...Including gaging his right to free speech...

This is not about Trump, in fact TN will say mean things to you if you bring up Trump
 

Forum List

Back
Top