The pros and cons of the unconstitutional gag order

originally posted by: network dude

originally posted by: chr0naut
a reply to: network dude

Should I add to 'free speech' by making up all sorts of stuff?

Just want to know for a friend.

let your friend know that in the USA, you can do just that. Free to say anything you like. There can be repercussions to things you say, but you can say them all you like. Do you no have free speech in koala humping land?

New Zealand has the wrong climate and an absence of Eucalypt trees, so, no Koalas. Sorry.

But we do have freedom of expression statutes.

Freedom of expression is defined as a basic human right in Article 19 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, to which nearly all the countries in world have agreed (the USA has not agreed)

"Everyone has the right to freedom of opinion and expression; this right includes freedom to hold opinions without interference and to seek, receive and impart information and ideas through any media and regardless of frontiers."

The USA was not the first nation to include freedom of expression as protected in its statutory law, as it was first codified into statute in ancient Athens along with democratic principles, about 1,900 years before the USA existed.

Many suggest that the Magna Carta supported free speech ideals, but it actually only applied to a particular part of society, it was not universal to all people. Similarly, the Constitution of the USA was formulated to encompass slavery, so it also was selective about whom it applied (and since it has been unchanged and not explicitly granted free speech to those it has excluded, perhaps for example felons, who are excluded from anti-slavery clauses, perhaps they also do not have a right of free speech?).

And indeed, the first amendment:

"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances."

.. only applies to Congress not passing a law that limits free speech. It does not mention the Judiciary doing so in case-law, nor other statutory authorities like the individual states and courts thereof. The first amendment does not say that all speech in all situations is protected from limitation by process of law. It just doesn't.

As an indicator of the way the US Constitution excludes specific people, and does not administer with equity, I furnish also Article I, Section 2, Cclause 3:

[i]'Representatives and direct Taxes shall be apportioned among the several States which may be included within this Union, according to their respective Numbers, which shall be determined by adding to the whole Number of free Persons, including those bound to Service for a Term of Years, and excluding Indians not taxed, three fifths of all other Persons.

These things, taken together, also explain why there is substantial valid US legal statute against the following:

- libel
- slander
- obscenity
- pornography
- sedition
- incitement
- fighting words
- hate speech
- classified information
- copyright violation
- trade secrets
- food labelling
- non-disclosure agreements
- the right to privacy
- dignity
- the right to be forgotten
- public security
- blasphemy
- perjury

So, does the USA really have the 'free speech' you appear to think it does?

- I'm just responding to someone from the 'Ahmurricahnnn!' crew, but don't want to distract them from their eagle-humping activities.

a reply to: chr0naut

So, does the USA really have the 'free speech you appear to think it does?

Yes. Absolutely.
Don’t let the current batch of libs and racist DEI pushers lead you to believe otherwise.
Free speech is the 1st amendment and there’s a reason for that.
It’s that important.

New Zealand would be lucky to have such rights enshrined in their constitution, if they had one.
Hopefully the tptb do right by your people soon.

originally posted by: Vermilion
a reply to: chr0naut

So, does the USA really have the 'free speech you appear to think it does?

Yes. Absolutely.
Don’t let the current batch of libs and racist DEI pushers lead you to believe otherwise.
Free speech is the 1st amendment and there’s a reason for that.
It’s that important.

New Zealand would be lucky to have such rights enshrined in their constitution, if they had one.
Hopefully the tptb do right by your people soon.

Please re-read the 1st amendment, and consider to whom it applies. Does it grant a right of free speech to all? Is it in fact a limitation on Congress only?

a reply to: chr0naut

Check out the 14th as well.

originally posted by: Vermilion
a reply to: chr0naut

Check out the 14th as well.

Common sense says 'do no harm'.

originally posted by: Vermilion
a reply to: chr0naut

Check out the 14th as well.

"No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws."

This is a limitation on the individual states. To suggest that federal law overrides state law and must be applied without prejudice equally to all citizens.

Since, as previously established, the 1st amendment didn't grant the right of free speech, as a privilege or immunity to citizens, how can the 14th possibly assign it? Much of the 'bill of rights' of the USA does not relate to rights of citizens, but specifically to limitation upon branches of governing bodies.

A simple statement of all the rights of a citizen seems to have been beyond those who lived within the mindset of political partisanship, and wrote the US Constitution.

This is why it was necessary for Elanor Roosevelt to push for such a document to be produced as a part of the United Nations. Written in the USA, for all mankind, but rejected by small minded factionalists. And so you don't have the rights you think you do, and that are enjoyed by almost every other country on Earth.

a reply to: chr0naut

The 14th amendment made the prohibition extend to the states.
The amendments are prohibitions.

Both the 1st and 14th apply to the feds and state and local regardless of whether they are a legislative branch or not.
Every single one.
All of them.

originally posted by: quintessentone

originally posted by: Vermilion
a reply to: chr0naut

Check out the 14th as well.

Common sense says 'do no harm'.

That's the Hippocratic Oath that says that.

Please show a link to where common sense is fully defined in statute. Should be an easy thing to do.

originally posted by: Vermilion
a reply to: chr0naut

The 14th amendment made the prohibition extend to the states.
The amendments are prohibitions.

Both the 1st and 14th apply to the feds and state and local regardless of whether they are a legislative branch or not.
Every single one.
All of them.

Yes, the prohibitions are prohibitions.

And they have exceptions, which means they don't apply universally.

Extending previous statute to all citizens does not remove the exceptions. In law, it reinforces them.

The gag order on Trump is not unconstitutional. It was instigated and executed by a Judge, compliant with established 'contempt of court' legislation, and not by Congress.

a reply to: chr0naut

The gag order on Trump is not unconstitutional.

It actually is.
Trump has the same free speech right as everyone else.
That foolish gag order is unconstitutional and unprecedented.
Trump violated no free speech laws.
You seem to think he did.
Which one would that be?

It was instigated and executed by a Judge, compliant with established 'contempt of court' legislation, and not by Congress.

Just because some political hack judge says it’s correct, it doesn’t make the gag order correct.
It’s a first amendment violation.
Blatant.
That’s why this thread exists.

originally posted by: Vermilion
a reply to: chr0naut

The gag order on Trump is not unconstitutional.

It actually is.
Trump has the same free speech right as everyone else.

Precisely. He isn't special, nor above the law.

That foolish gag order is unconstitutional and unprecedented.

People are found in contempt of court all the time, and have been declared so for close to 200 years. Despite the repeated use of the world by pro-Trump 'ignoramogencia', the word 'unprecedented' means that that 'whatever, has never happened before'.

Trump violated no free speech laws.

Except for:

- libel
- slander
- sedition
- incitement
- dignity
- perjury

You seem to think he did.

So did the judge.

Which one would that be?

Previously listed.

It was instigated and executed by a Judge, compliant with established 'contempt of court' legislation, and not by Congress.Just because some political hack judge says it’s correct, it doesn’t make the gag order correct.

He is the judge of the court case which is trying the evidence and for which a jury has pronounced Trump guilty.

It’s a first amendment violation.
Blatant.
That’s why this thread exists.

The first amendment places a limitation on Congress and no other group or persons.

This thread exists because some people cannot understand that their hero has legitimately been tried and found guilty, and that his random false accusations are contrary to an unprejudiced and fair trial.

a reply to: quintessentone

Where is the hate speech? Where is the harm? The statements made by the DA, Stormy and Cohen will rile a base more than what Trump would say about his trial.

We have heard it all before but when you gag the defendant but not those testifying....seems odd right? I mean, those who testified are on social media and if you think the jury was on a blackout for 6 weeks please.

Everyone should have been gagged in this trial and the jury should never have been allowed to leave. House them with some of the immigrants in those nice NY hotels.

If they can do this to a former president do you really think you still live in a free country?

originally posted by: matafuchs
a reply to: quintessentone

Where is the hate speech? Where is the harm? The statements made by the DA, Stormy and Cohen will rile a base more than what Trump would say about his trial.

We have heard it all before but when you gag the defendant but not those testifying....seems odd right? I mean, those who testified are on social media and if you think the jury was on a blackout for 6 weeks please.

Everyone should have been gagged in this trial and the jury should never have been allowed to leave. House them with some of the immigrants in those nice NY hotels.

If they can do this to a former president do you really think you still live in a free country?

Some (probably most) people will choose to be responsible and "gag" themselves in certain situations.

Trump is not one of those people.

He is completely irresponsible for what comes out of his mouth. Or is he?

He is a Carnival barker. Throw it out there til you get someone's attention -- then "work it".

originally posted by: chr0naut


This thread exists because some people cannot understand that their hero has legitimately been tried and found guilty, and that his random false accusations are contrary to an unprejudiced and fair trial.

you didn't read the OP did you? It's a shame seeing how proud you are of thinking you are a smart person. Oh well, it's not like I thought it would be different this time. DERP on sir.

a reply to: Annee

and as I said in the OP that some weren't smart enough to read and or understand, the gag order is likely doing Trump a favor by keeping his comments tempered.

a reply to: chr0naut

Precisely. He isn't special, nor above the law.

If he isn’t special then tell us why he is the only one gagged.

Except for: - libel - slander - sedition - incitement - dignity - perjury

He hasn’t been convicted of any of those things in that stormy case.
Not one of them.
Where is Trumps due process?

The first amendment places a limitation on Congress and no other group or persons.

Stop posting that ridiculous misinformation.

Local, state AND federal agencies are all prohibited from violating people’s free speech rights.
Some private companies also have to abide by those same prohibitions as the government btw.

Can you name a case where ONLY the defendant in a trial was gagged?

originally posted by: network dude

originally posted by: chr0naut

This thread exists because some people cannot understand that their hero has legitimately been tried and found guilty, and that his random false accusations are contrary to an unprejudiced and fair trial.

you didn't read the OP did you? It's a shame seeing how proud you are of thinking you are a smart person. Oh well, it's not like I thought it would be different this time. DERP on sir.

My previous post was referring specifically to you. The person who posted the OP. And, that I did read the OP, is obvious by my responses to it.

You consistently claim that others are ignorant rather than address the specifics of the actual topics, don't you? Perhaps because you do not critically evaluate the opinions of others that align with yours, and which you re-post with little new content?

originally posted by: Vermilion
a reply to: chr0naut

Precisely. He isn't special, nor above the law.

If he isn’t special then tell us why he is the only one gagged.

Except for: - libel - slander - sedition - incitement - dignity - perjury

He hasn’t been convicted of any of those things in that stormy case.

The gag order was placed because he perjured himself, claiming that officers of the court were corrupt, which he did even before the trial had started and anyone had presented their case. He has no evidence even of intent, so it was libellous slander and perjury.

And he was warned by the judge prior to the gag order.

Not one of them.
Where is Trumps due process?

It happened in court. Despite his expensive defence team, and his protestations, he was found guilty by a jury of his peers and based upon evidence submitted.

The first amendment places a limitation on Congress and no other group or persons.

Stop posting that ridiculous misinformation.

Local, state AND federal agencies are all prohibited from violating people’s free speech rights.
Some private companies also have to abide by those same prohibitions as the government btw.

Can you name a case where ONLY the defendant in a trial was gagged?

Yes, there are a few legal precedents:

gag order - WEX - Cornell Law School

Gag orders are placed upon people who attempt to derail the fair process of jurisprudence by appeal to public opinion. They usually only relate to a single person who has demonstrated contempt of court and tried to take the case outside of the court-house in a way prejudicial to fair trial on a factual and evidential basis.

Trump was fined for contempt of court and the gag order was placed subsequently to prevent further instances. The gag order does not limit Trump from presenting his case in court. But he is the one on trial, not any others in this case, accusations against others are not going to derail the process of his trial.

originally posted by: network dude
a reply to: Annee

. . . the gag order is likely doing Trump a favor by keeping his comments tempered.

That we agree on.

a reply to: Annee

Annee, can you show me where in the Constitution it is illegal to be a Carnival Barker?

Seriously though, ALL people involved in this trial should have been gagged. Press is ok as they will report as they want but no one who was involved in the trial should have been able to say anything. That would be fair.

It is not about not being able to speak. It is about being singled out.

I know others are saying it may have helped him but, like you said, he will not STFU so why gag him? If it was me, I would have let him hang himself so....why not is the question.