Are gag orders constitutional?

[TNHarley]

Yeah, he was a Reservist.

Good lord. And then actually went on a shooting spree. Damn..
Wouldnt that be considered a terroristic threat?

 

[Marener]

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.

That’s your spin. It’s pretty obvious you’re not interested in a rational conversation.

 

[Harpy Eagle]

Good lord. And then actually went on a shooting spree. Damn..
Wouldnt that be considered a terroristic threat?

They are just words and words cannot hurt anyone, remember?

 

[Marener]

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

How are democrats trying to do that?

 

[Harpy Eagle]

How are democrats trying to do that?

You will have to wait till he gets his next talking points email for an answer

 

[Dadoalex]

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..

When a person is making public statements designed to influence the jury pool, influence or threaten witnesses or jurists, threaten court staff, prosecutors or others associated with a matter before the court the right to a fair trial is being threatened.

This is your basic mob tactic.

Gag orders are constitutional but their reach is limited.

 

[Dadoalex]

So you lose the first amendment, because of the sixth? Because of ones person opinion on what might influence a jurist?

No, because the party in question is clearly trying to deny a fair trial.
Witness intimidation is a crime for a reason.

 

[kaz]

Good lord. And then actually went on a shooting spree. Damn..
Wouldnt that be considered a terroristic threat?

Maine has "yellow laws" which means his family cannot go to the police and have him detained for the safety of the community. Only law enforcement can initiate that.

As a pro-gun nut, that law is inexplicable to me. Who knows crazy more than his family.

This is yet another shooting that Federal leftist gun laws did nothing but disarm his victims. His face was clearly displayed, he is planning to not survive this

 

[BrokeLoser]

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

Lefist Logic:
”Only CNN and social media should have the right to “taint the jury pool”.

 

[BrokeLoser]

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?

You think we should prosecute people for thought crimes?

 

[Harpy Eagle]

You think we should prosecute people for thought crimes?

I do not, I am not the one saying the guy should have been locked up.

Here is the thread, feel free to join it...

Are We Really That Stupid?

Stupid enough to identify, incarcerate, and hear his plans of shooting people and then LET HIM GO!! WTF happened? Anyone? (This is NOT a 'gunner' thread) How do we allow something like that?

www.usmessageboard.com

 

[bendog]

So you lose the first amendment, because of the sixth? Because of ones person opinion on what might influence a jurist?

No offense but the answer to your question is in your link.
Apply the test, however, is not that simple. For one, the test in Nebraska Press Association was constructed with prior restraints on the media itself in mind, but a number of gag orders are on parties to the litigation, not the media, and forbid lawyers, parties, or witnesses from talking to the press. Because a gag order on the parties does not affect the media’s right of access, and is narrower than a blanket gag order on all the media, it’s considered a less restrictive means of protecting fair trial rights.[8] Beyond that conclusion, there’s no consensus on the applicable test to assess the constitutionality of gag orders on the parties. The circuits have split between requiring a “substantial likelihood” of material prejudice to the trial, a “reasonable likelihood” of such prejudice, and applying an “imminent danger” or “clear and present danger” standard.[9]

And since you WISELY limited the thread to not discussing the particularities of Trump's gag order .... the answer to the question really depends on the circuit the trial court is in, and the narrowness of what the trial court proscribes. But yes, generally they are allowed, assuming they are limited to a specific need to control a trial, and that's the substance of your link.

 

[TNHarley]

That’s your spin. It’s pretty obvious you’re not interested in a rational conversation.

Thats not spin. Thats basically what you said. It sounds stupid, doesnt it?

 

[TNHarley]

They are just words and words cannot hurt anyone, remember?

Yes, true. But you are saying you are about to kill a bunch of people.
Thats a big difference than having a gag order put on you for talking shit about the government or something.

 

[TNHarley]

When a person is making public statements designed to influence the jury pool, influence or threaten witnesses or jurists, threaten court staff, prosecutors or others associated with a matter before the court the right to a fair trial is being threatened.

This is your basic mob tactic.

Gag orders are constitutional but their reach is limited.

Threatening people is different than just words. Its a promise of physical violence.

 

[TNHarley]

No, because the party in question is clearly trying to deny a fair trial.
Witness intimidation is a crime for a reason.

Someone is trying to deny themselves a fair trial? lol

 

[Harpy Eagle]

Yes, true. But you are saying you are about to kill a bunch of people.
Thats a big difference than having a gag order put on you for talking shit about the government or something.

But this is not about a specific gag order, remember.

This is about the concept of a gag order.

Seems if we can lock someone up or take their 2nd amendment rights away from them for their words, then the basic concept of a gag order is not unconstitutional.

 

[TNHarley]

But this is not about a specific gag order, remember.

This is about the concept of a gag order.

Seems if we can lock someone up or take their 2nd amendment rights away from them for their words, then the basic concept of a gag order is not unconstitutional.

I didnt say that we should.

 

[bendog]

But this is not about a specific gag order, remember.

This is about the concept of a gag order.

Seems if we can lock someone up or take their 2nd amendment rights away from them for their words, then the basic concept of a gag order is not unconstitutional.

No const right is without limitations, because as the thread shows, the First Amendment can, and does, conflict with the Sixth Amendment as well as the Second, and there may be other conflicts I've not seen or thought of.

I've seen defendants removed from court rooms for obstructing trials. And even brought in in chains and jump suits.

 

[WEATHER53]

Gag orders are for weak, fearful cases. Calling someone a “girlfriend” does Not , once again, equal the lib loon definition attempt of “intimidation”