Are gag orders constitutional?

[TNHarley]

the First Amendment can, and does, conflict with the Sixth Amendment as well as the Second

But how do words conflict with the sixth? They dont, IMO.
And what part of the constitution gives the judicial branch the power to decide which, and who, loses rights?

 

[struth]

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..

Yes, they are....so long as they are the least restrictive measure taken, they are done for the purpose of protecting a fair trial and can be effective. It is the party requesting the order, burden to prove

Generally, they aren't much of an issue, like a Court ordering two co-defendants not to speak to one another, or to complaining witnesses....in the case of political proseuctions, like this one, it gets more tricky because it's dealing with political speech, which is the speech the 1st Amendment is most concerned with

 

[TNHarley]

Yes, they are....so long as they are the least restrictive measure taken, they are done for the purpose of protecting a fair trial and can be effective. It is the party requesting the order, burden to prove

Generally, they aren't much of an issue, like a Court ordering two co-defendants not to speak to one another, or to complaining witnesses....in the case of political proseuctions, like this one, it gets more tricky because it's dealing with political speech, which is the speech the 1st Amendment is most concerned with

How are they constitutional, though? What in the Constitution, gives the judicial branch the power to limit my rights?

 

[Harpy Eagle]

No const right is without limitations

Everybody knows this, but it is not politically expedient at times to admit to such

 

[TNHarley]

Everybody knows this, but it is not politically expedient at times to admit to such

So when is it constitutional to have the govt search your property without a warrant?

 

[Harpy Eagle]

And what part of the constitution gives the judicial branch the power to decide which, and who, loses rights?

Does a judge not to do this every time they sentence someone to jail or a fine or what have you?

 

[Harpy Eagle]

So when is it constitutional to have the govt search your property without a warrant?

Is a Warrantless Search Ever Permissible?

The Fourth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution protects individuals from unlawful searches and seizures by law enforcement. As a general rule,

www.demilialaw.com

Exigent circumstances can allow for warrantless searches. If the police believe there is a crime in progress, someone’s life is in danger, or evidence could be destroyed, they are permitted to enter a premises without first obtaining a warrant. However, they must be able to show they had probable cause that justified their need to act quickly. In addition, if the police are in hot pursuit of a suspect who enters onto private property, they do not need a search warrant to enter — even if the suspect has no connection with the owner of the property.

 

[Marener]

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

It sounds stupid when you spin it, but that’s the purpose of spin.

People who are facing criminal charges can have their rights restricted.

FFS, that’s what pretrial detention is.

 

[TNHarley]

Is a Warrantless Search Ever Permissible?

The Fourth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution protects individuals from unlawful searches and seizures by law enforcement. As a general rule,

www.demilialaw.com

Exigent circumstances can allow for warrantless searches. If the police believe there is a crime in progress, someone’s life is in danger, or evidence could be destroyed, they are permitted to enter a premises without first obtaining a warrant. However, they must be able to show they had probable cause that justified their need to act quickly. In addition, if the police are in hot pursuit of a suspect who enters onto private property, they do not need a search warrant to enter — even if the suspect has no connection with the owner of the property.

Weird how the constitution doesnt say any of this.

 

[Billo_Really]

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..

1st amendment rights do not allow you to commit a crime!

 

[Harpy Eagle]

Weird how the constitution doesnt say any of this.

As you pointed out above , the constitution does not address every single possible incident.

 

[Dadoalex]

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

"This isn't going to end well for him"
IS a threat of violence.

 

[Dadoalex]

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

The People are just as entitled to a fair trial.

 

[TNHarley]

It sounds stupid when you spin it, but that’s the purpose of spin.

People who are facing criminal charges can have their rights restricted.

FFS, that’s what pretrial detention is.

Thats what you said, i just reworded it. Still means the EXACT same thing.
What about gag orders in civil trials?

 

[BackAgain]

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..

Maybe, under certain very strict circumstances (such as in a criminal case where the gag order is needed to avoid tainting a jury pool), the authority of the court stretches as far as allowing a limited gag order. Maybe.

However, in any civil case, especially one not involving a jury, it is impossible to square a gag order with the Constitutional guarantee of freedom of speech.

 

[TNHarley]

1st amendment rights do not allow you to commit a crime!

ummm ok?

 

[TNHarley]

to avoid tainting a jury pool

What do you mean by that?

 

[Marener]

Thats what you said, i just reworded it. Still means the EXACT same thing.
What about gag orders in civil trials?

What about them? It’s the same concept.

Spin is using language as a weapon to imply different things. When you say “sissy” you’re implying that the court isn’t rational in feeling intimidation or coercion.

What about witness tampering? Isnt that just free speech?

 

[TNHarley]

As you pointed out above , the constitution does not address every single possible incident.

It also doesnt say that we can be searched without a warrant under certain conditions.

 

[TNHarley]

What about them? It’s the same concept.

Spin is using language as a weapon to imply different things. When you say “sissy” you’re implying that the court isn’t rational in feeling intimidation or coercion.

What about witness tampering? Isnt that just free speech?

People who are facing criminal charges can have their rights restricted.
Please learn to forum properly. TIA