Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
SCOTUS has ruled on many occasions that freedom of speech is not absolute and that restrictions with limited time and content guidelines are reasonable. Trump can currently talk about anything he wants to talk about except stuff related to his current case. Once the case is over, he can go back to spewing whatever garbage he desires, other than directly threatening people.
You are saying that it's perfectly OK for any defendant or plaintiff to go out in public and communicate anything they want related to a case that's being tried. That's patently ridiculous.
Gag orders are rare, because nearly all participants in a legal case know they shouldn't be discussing it in public. Trump was gagged because he has zero ability to filter himself and doesn't think any laws apply to him. He sees laws as minor bumps to be stomped on as he moves on his path.
Your claims are what are patently ridiculous, and just more unhinged left wing Trump Derangement symptoms. The facts are, there are clearly decided Supreme Court cases indirectly addressing the matter of gag orders which are deemed to constitute “prior restraint”, and are not far removed from instituting thought crime penalties, or retroactive criminal prosecutions that aren’t constitutional either.
The court’s view has been made crystal clear that any actions to restrict 1st Amendment protections can only be allowable in the most extreme, rare and compelling situations, contrary to your insinuations otherwise.
For example, in the case of United States versus the New York Times, the SCOTUS determined it was unconstitutional for the lower courts to enjoin the news paper from publishing the Pentagon Papers, even under the premise of a threat to National Security.
In other cases, the Supreme Court has repeatedly maintained that the 1st Amendment protects the right to criticize government officials, even harshly. In New York Times vs. Sullivan, the court unanimously declared that the amendment reflects a “profound national commitment to the principle that debate on public issues should be uninhibited, robust, and wide-open, and that it may well include vehement, caustic, and sometimes unpleasantly sharp attacks on government and public officials.”
With regard to Chutkan’s order, it’s ABUNDANTLY CLEAR that the basis for it is DIRECTLY associated with protecting prosecutors and court personnel from Trump’s unpleasant remarks and allegations. As is stated clearly in the Court’s decision in NYT vs Sullivan, the law is clear that speech can’t be restricted to prevent government officials from being criticized or even vilified, and that is the basis for the gag order on Trump.
So, your empty, gratuitous and false claims about the Supreme Court’s views are totally in conflict with reality. Surprise Surprise .... Surprised I am not.
And of another thing I am certain ... you don’t seem to understand the magnitude of allowing such unconstitutional restrictions in this specific case, because there are additional issues over and above simple 1st Amendment protections. Trump is not only a citizen charged with crimes, and therefore has the right to defend himself in the court of public opinion, which can only be done if he can freely speak about the corruption he’s dealing with, but as a leading candidate for the next Presidential election, these “prosecutions” are a blatant political maneuver to interfere in said elections, which constitute criminal conduct, and conspiracy.
The more basic issue relative to such “gag orders” is the unilateral power of the Judge to be the sole voice in deciding if a violation has been committed. Nothing could be a more blatant violation of due process, especially in a criminal prosecution.
It’s sad that half the population are just too dumbed down to understand such basic principles of rights and protections against government tyranny.
I find it rather appalling, as well as inexcusable.
Your claims are what are patently ridiculous, and just more unhinged left wing Trump Derangement symptoms. The facts are, there are clearly decided Supreme Court cases indirectly addressing the matter of gag orders which are deemed to constitute “prior restraint”, and are not far removed from instituting thought crime penalties, or retroactive criminal prosecutions that aren’t constitutional either.
The court’s view has been made crystal clear that any actions to restrict 1st Amendment protections can only be allowable in the most extreme, rare and compelling situations, contrary to your insinuations otherwise.
For example, in the case of United States versus the New York Times, the SCOTUS determined it was unconstitutional for the lower courts to enjoin the news paper from publishing the Pentagon Papers, even under the premise of a threat to National Security.
In other cases, the Supreme Court has repeatedly maintained that the 1st Amendment protects the right to criticize government officials, even harshly. In New York Times vs. Sullivan, the court unanimously declared that the amendment reflects a “profound national commitment to the principle that debate on public issues should be uninhibited, robust, and wide-open, and that it may well include vehement, caustic, and sometimes unpleasantly sharp attacks on government and public officials.”
With regard to Chutkan’s order, it’s ABUNDANTLY CLEAR that the basis for it is DIRECTLY associated with protecting prosecutors and court personnel from Trump’s unpleasant remarks and allegations. As is stated clearly in the Court’s decision in NYT vs Sullivan, the law is clear that speech can’t be restricted to prevent government officials from being criticized or even vilified, and that is the basis for the gag order on Trump.
So, your empty, gratuitous and false claims about the Supreme Court’s views are totally in conflict with reality. Surprise Surprise .... Surprised I am not.
And of another thing I am certain ... you don’t seem to understand the magnitude of allowing such unconstitutional restrictions in this specific case, because there are additional issues over and above simple 1st Amendment protections. Trump is not only a citizen charged with crimes, and therefore has the right to defend himself in the court of public opinion, which can only be done if he can freely speak about the corruption he’s dealing with, but as a leading candidate for the next Presidential election, these “prosecutions” are a blatant political maneuver to interfere in said elections, which constitute criminal conduct, and conspiracy.
The more basic issue relative to such “gag orders” is the unilateral power of the Judge to be the sole voice in deciding if a violation has been committed. Nothing could be a more blatant violation of due process, especially in a criminal prosecution.
It’s sad that half the population are just too dumbed down to understand such basic principles of rights and protections against government tyranny.
I find it rather appalling, as well as inexcusable.
None of your cited cases are relevant. Trump can appeal the gag order if he wishes. Until a higher court overturns the order, Trump needs to shut up or go to jail. Those are his choices. There is no prior restraint here. Trump made remarks about a member of the judge's staff, which is what caused the order.
Chuktan's order is temporarily paused while Trump appeals. Engoron's order is still in effect. Both should be in effect, as they are limited and very narrow in terms of scope and time.
SCOTUS has ruled on many occasions that freedom of speech is not absolute and that restrictions with limited time and content guidelines are reasonable. Trump can currently talk about anything he wants to talk about except stuff related to his current case. Once the case is over, he can go back to spewing whatever garbage he desires, other than directly threatening people.
You are saying that it's perfectly OK for any defendant or plaintiff to go out in public and communicate anything they want related to a case that's being tried. That's patently ridiculous.
Gag orders are rare, because nearly all participants in a legal case know they shouldn't be discussing it in public. Trump was gagged because he has zero ability to filter himself and doesn't think any laws apply to him. He sees laws as minor bumps to be stomped on as he moves on his path.
" except stuff related to his current case.
Odd, we can talk about it, the press can talk about, and dems can sure talk about it, it but, he CANT!
Please give us you opinion on WHY some liberal dem judge is afraid of what Trump might say.
" That's patently ridiculous."
When you ban the press and the rest of us from talking about it , let us know.
Exactly, what is the "judge" afraid of?
Last edited by Quick Enough; 10-25-2023 at 05:54 AM..
None of your cited cases are relevant. Trump can appeal the gag order if he wishes. Until a higher court overturns the order, Trump needs to shut up or go to jail. Those are his choices. There is no prior restraint here. Trump made remarks about a member of the judge's staff, which is what caused the order.
Chuktan's order is temporarily paused while Trump appeals. Engoron's order is still in effect. Both should be in effect, as they are limited and very narrow in terms of scope and time.
LOL. Might want to do a deep dive into the U.S. Constitution to see what it covers and what it does not cover. Courts absolutely have discretion to limit a criminal defendant from making oral and written statements that can reasonably be inferred to be threats, harassment, inciting violence or other related crimes.
"Might want to do a deep dive into the U.S. Constitution to see what it covers and what it does not cover"
Why don't YOU just tell us, being you claim to know?
SCOTUS has ruled on many occasions that freedom of speech is not absolute and that restrictions with limited time and content guidelines are reasonable. Trump can currently talk about anything he wants to talk about except stuff related to his current case. Once the case is over, he can go back to spewing whatever garbage he desires, other than directly threatening people.
You are saying that it's perfectly OK for any defendant or plaintiff to go out in public and communicate anything they want related to a case that's being tried. That's patently ridiculous.
Gag orders are rare, because nearly all participants in a legal case know they shouldn't be discussing it in public. Trump was gagged because he has zero ability to filter himself and doesn't think any laws apply to him. He sees laws as minor bumps to be stomped on as he moves on his path.
"SCOTUS has ruled on many occasions"
And many times the left disagrees and many time the right disagrees., so, what is your point?
Your claims are what are patently ridiculous, and just more unhinged left wing Trump Derangement symptoms. The facts are, there are clearly decided Supreme Court cases indirectly addressing the matter of gag orders which are deemed to constitute “prior restraint”, and are not far removed from instituting thought crime penalties, or retroactive criminal prosecutions that aren’t constitutional either.
The court’s view has been made crystal clear that any actions to restrict 1st Amendment protections can only be allowable in the most extreme, rare and compelling situations, contrary to your insinuations otherwise.
For example, in the case of United States versus the New York Times, the SCOTUS determined it was unconstitutional for the lower courts to enjoin the news paper from publishing the Pentagon Papers, even under the premise of a threat to National Security.
In other cases, the Supreme Court has repeatedly maintained that the 1st Amendment protects the right to criticize government officials, even harshly. In New York Times vs. Sullivan, the court unanimously declared that the amendment reflects a “profound national commitment to the principle that debate on public issues should be uninhibited, robust, and wide-open, and that it may well include vehement, caustic, and sometimes unpleasantly sharp attacks on government and public officials.”
With regard to Chutkan’s order, it’s ABUNDANTLY CLEAR that the basis for it is DIRECTLY associated with protecting prosecutors and court personnel from Trump’s unpleasant remarks and allegations. As is stated clearly in the Court’s decision in NYT vs Sullivan, the law is clear that speech can’t be restricted to prevent government officials from being criticized or even vilified, and that is the basis for the gag order on Trump.
So, your empty, gratuitous and false claims about the Supreme Court’s views are totally in conflict with reality. Surprise Surprise .... Surprised I am not.
And of another thing I am certain ... you don’t seem to understand the magnitude of allowing such unconstitutional restrictions in this specific case, because there are additional issues over and above simple 1st Amendment protections. Trump is not only a citizen charged with crimes, and therefore has the right to defend himself in the court of public opinion, which can only be done if he can freely speak about the corruption he’s dealing with, but as a leading candidate for the next Presidential election, these “prosecutions” are a blatant political maneuver to interfere in said elections, which constitute criminal conduct, and conspiracy.
The more basic issue relative to such “gag orders” is the unilateral power of the Judge to be the sole voice in deciding if a violation has been committed. Nothing could be a more blatant violation of due process, especially in a criminal prosecution.
It’s sad that half the population are just too dumbed down to understand such basic principles of rights and protections against government tyranny.
I find it rather appalling, as well as inexcusable.
"with protecting prosecutors and court personnel from Trump’s unpleasant remarks and allegations"
Just another case of the lefty can dish it out and can't take.
If I tried to post every "unpleasant remarks and allegations" said about Trump from the left I would be here for a LONG time!.
Federal Judge Tanya S. Chutkan is an appointee of former President Barack Obama.
Not a slightest chance of bias here!
Judges are assigned at random. Do you think Trump is entitled to have a judge he appointed hear the case? No, he is not entitled to have a judge he appointed hear the case. If he thinks Chuktan is biased, he can file a motion to recuse.
"SCOTUS has ruled on many occasions"
And many times the left disagrees and many time the right disagrees., so, what is your point?
The point is that SCOTUS is in the business of interpreting the Constitution in light of legal challenges to various points. Their decision on a case becomes precedent until there is a superseding decision on the same issue. The right to a fair trial is one of the cornerstones of our Democracy.
Their decisions in the past have confirmed that the courts have a right and a duty to impose gag orders for various reasons under various circumstances.
Here's a pretty good primer. Note that this is not a case of a gag order being imposed as a prior restraint.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
