Gag Order Lifted

[GoldenBoy89]

Did this congresswoman attack a court...which, btw, is the language of the gag order in question.
Additionally, sactionining a member of Congress was a political statement passed by the House, not a court.
I don't see where you're going with this...

Where I’m going with it is people here are perfectly fine with free speech being curtailed, even officially by the government, when it’s something they don’t like or coming from someone they don’t like. People will comment on one thread about a politician’s speech being curtailed by a court and then go and post in another thread where a politician was punished for her speech by a different government body. I get the cases aren’t exactly similar but my point is about the reactions each are getting around here.

A lot of the people supposedly standing for free speech in this thread suddenly don’t in another. I just find that interesting.

 

[DaisyDay]

Eh....close enough.

For propaganda purposes perhaps.

 

[Ceallaigh]

Makes one recall the days when people laughed at "cofefe" and think....that wasn't so bad in retrospect.

According to the captions, that one word is; "I-was-going-to-put-him-in-a-foot".

 

[Ana the Ist]

According to the captions, that one word is; "I-was-going-to-put-him-in-a-foot".

I typically find it amusing when auto-captions get it wrong...

But in that case "I was gonna put him in a foot" or even "foot him in a foot" is pretty close.

I recall cofefe and covefe jokes and memes lasting a least a year after it happened...because it was legitimately funny. Seeing someone with that much power and authority slip up with an embarrassing gaffe is both a relatable experience and the relative rarity of them suggests they were an unusual mistake.

I think part of the reason why Biden's gaffes and mistakes don't really become memes isn't merely a result of the media trying to avoid replaying or referring to them...but also because they aren't funny and infrequent. They're embarrassing and happen all the time. The mental decline of this man since 2020 has been so rapid and obviously significant, it doesn't seem to funny to make light of it. He should be in a nursing home or place where he can receive around the clock care. He shouldn't be running one of the most powerful nations in the world....let alone running for reelection. There's a plethora of left leaning political pundits who understand this and have been bravely saying it for at least a year now.

If he runs, these moments will be played on repeat during campaign ads for his opponent and its not a good look.

 

[Ana the Ist]

For propaganda purposes perhaps.

The results are the same...he's no longer restricted by the gag order.

 

[DaisyDay]

The results are the same...he's no longer restricted by the gag order.

But different in that it is temporary (and usual), not a giant embarrassment for the judge.

 

[rjs330]

Yeah. And?

Where in the first amendment does it say you can't face penalties, legal or otherwise, for saying things sometimes? Libel and slander exist, for example, as does hate speech and inciting to riot. Further, courts often impose gag orders on the details of settlement agreements. All of these legal issues penalize free speech in one way or another, and none of them are unconstitutional.

Oh boy, you don't understand the first amendment at all do you. If you have to pay to be able to speed your mind then it's not free is it.

 

[rjs330]

Yup. And exercising a right sometimes comes with consequences. We have the right to bear arms, for example, but if you shoot someone in the middle of 5th Avenue without provocation, you're gonna be arrested.

This is really an interesting argument. Equating the freedom to carry a gun and the freedom to murder someone with it. I don't believe the 2nd Amendment says anything about not infringing upon the right of someone to use it at any time and any place for any reason. Murder is obviously not a protected right. Did you think it was?

 

[rjs330]

An American citizen and congresswoman was, effectively.

Why would it matter who when our rights apply to all?

Who exactly is this citizen and congresswoman?

 

[A2SG]

Oh boy, you don't understand the first amendment at all do you. If you have to pay to be able to speed your mind then it's not free is it.

Then explain why torts like slander and libel have never been declared unconstitutional.

The first amendment specifically says: "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."

Nowhere does it say speech comes free of penalties on occasion, legal or otherwise. For example, slander or libel, inciting a riot, threats, etc.

Gag orders happen frequently. At no point have they been ruled unconstitutional...and it seems highly unlikely Trump's will in either case that one has been imposed. The specific restrictions may be altered somewhat, depending on the ruling of the appeals court, but it won't be ruled unconstitutional.

So...what don't I understand about the first amendment, exactly?

-- A2SG, feel free to be as detailed as necessary.....

 

[A2SG]

This is really an interesting argument. Equating the freedom to carry a gun and the freedom to murder someone with it.

I simply asked if the right to bear arms came with some legal restrictions. Clearly, it does. The right to free speech also comes with certain legal restrictions.

No right is absolute.

I don't believe the 2nd Amendment says anything about not infringing upon the right of someone to use it at any time and any place for any reason.

Neither does the First.

Murder is obviously not a protected right. Did you think it was?

Nope. Then again, neither are slander or libel. What's your point?

-- A2SG, curious how you came to the idea that I might think it was......

 

[rjs330]

Then explain why torts like slander and libel have never been declared unconstitutional.

The first amendment specifically says: "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."

Nowhere does it say speech comes free of penalties on occasion, legal or otherwise. For example, slander or libel, inciting a riot, threats, etc.

Gag orders happen frequently. At no point have they been ruled unconstitutional...and it seems highly unlikely Trump's will in either case that one has been imposed. The specific restrictions may be altered somewhat, depending on the ruling of the appeals court, but it won't be ruled unconstitutional.

So...what don't I understand about the first amendment, exactly?

-- A2SG, feel free to be as detailed as necessary.....

Not even remotely the same thing. I won't go into what slander and libel are not why the courts have ruled they are not free speech issues.
In this case you know good and well we are dealing with criticism of government actions and authorities. Gag orders are not about that either, usually.

That's what you don't seem to understand. I would bet that if the court started fining the press for criticizing or being critical of government and their authorities you would be screaming about freedom of the press.

 

[rjs330]

simply asked if the right to bear arms came with some legal restrictions. Clearly, it does. The right to free speech also comes with certain legal restrictions.

No right is absolute.

Murder has nothing to do with the right to keep and bear arms. You know it. It's interesting that you thought it did.

Slander and libel were not the issue with the first amendment. Criticism of government and the ability to speak out are.

As I said if reporters and journalists were fined for criticizing the president you would be very upset and be speaking about the first amendment violations.

 

[A2SG]

Not even remotely the same thing.

Not really. Slander and libel impose legal penalties on the use of free speech. It's having to pay for speaking your mind, which was exactly what you objected to earlier.

I won't go into what slander and libel are not why the courts have ruled they are not free speech issues.

Why not? Isn't that completely relevant to the point you're trying to make?

In this case you know good and well we are dealing with criticism of government actions and authorities.

Not in general. Only very specific ones, involving an active trial and specific personnel involved in that trial. Trump remains free to criticize any other government action or authority.

Gag orders are not about that either, usually.

They can be. But this particular gag order is currently under appeal, so I guess we'll see if the appeals court agrees with you. It is possible they may alter the specific terms of the order, but it is highly unlikely they'll throw it out entirely, let alone rule it unconstitutional. But we'll see.

That's what you don't seem to understand.

I think I understand it fine. Gag orders have never been ruled unconstitutional, so they seem to be perfectly within the boundaries of the first amendment. But, as I've said, we will see how the appeals court rules in Trump's case.

I would bet that if the court started fining the press for criticizing or being critical of government and their authorities you would be screaming about freedom of the press.

If the gag order were that broad, you're right. Trump's isn't, so we're dealing with a different set of circumstances.

But, let's also not forget, media outlets have been sued, successfully in many cases, for libel. It happens, and there's nothing unconstitutional about it.

So no freedoms are absolute.

But....I'll be fair here. If I've misunderstood anything in this case, feel free to explain exactly what I've misunderstood, or provide the facts to refute anything I've said. But, so far as I can tell, this is simply a case of us disagreeing, not about me misunderstanding anything.

Just for background, I have a degree in journalism, and have worked in the field (even if I'm not currently), though I am a writer*. My wife also has a background in journalism that goes much further than mine, so I'm very well versed in these issues. If I have misunderstood anything here, I would sincerely like to know what it is, and exactly what it is I've gotten wrong.

-- A2SG, *yes, I do have a book available on Amazon....PM me if you want details!

 

[A2SG]

Murder has nothing to do with the right to keep and bear arms. You know it. It's interesting that you thought it did.

Free speech and bearing arms are both rights, protected by the Constitution. Both come with penalties, legal or otherwise, for misusing them.

Seems similar enough to me.

Slander and libel were not the issue with the first amendment. Criticism of government and the ability to speak out are.

And Trump can still do that. But if he personally attacked specific courtroom personnel, he faced a penalty. That order has been stayed, pending appeal, so we'll have to see how it turns out. But I highly doubt the gag order will be lifted entirely, or even less likely be ruled unconstitutional.

As I said if reporters and journalists were fined for criticizing the president you would be very upset and be speaking about the first amendment violations.

Sure. And Trump has always been, and remains entirely free to criticize the president all he likes. The gag orders never applied to that.

-- A2SG, also, as I've said, I never thought the gag order was a good idea anyway....Trump's rants only strengthen the prosecution's case so I'm fully in favor of him continuing.....

 

[rjs330]

Not really. Slander and libel impose legal penalties on the use of free speech. It's having to pay for speaking your mind, which was exactly what you objected to earlier.

I disagree.

Why not? Isn't that completely relevant to the point you're trying to make?

Because it seems you know what they are. And libel and slander ARE subject to the first amendment protections as well. Looking at the history behind them you can see that the First Amendment wasn't necessarily offering protections for defamation.

But as the courts have ruled the government and government officials are not protected from criticism.

Sure. And Trump has always been, and remains entirely free to criticize the president all he likes. The gag orders never applied to that.

The gaga order was there to prevent Trump.or punish Trump for using his speech to criticize the government officials and proceedings.

Not in general. Only very specific ones, involving an active trial and specific personnel involved in that trial. Trump remains free to criticize any other government action or authority.

This is exactly what free speech is about. Telling someone he will be punished for criticizing very specific government officials or government proceedings is a ridiculous constraint. It would be no different that telling someone you can't criticize the president for how he delt with COVID. That's one specific individual and one specific issue.

They can be. But this particular gag order is currently under appeal, so I guess we'll see if the appeals court agrees with you. It is possible they may alter the specific terms of the order, but it is highly unlikely they'll throw it out entirely, let alone rule it unconstitutional. But we'll see.

Yes we will.

So no freedoms are absolute.

No they aren't. No one said they were. In THIS specific case I believe the court violated Trump's first amendment right to criticize public officials and proceedings.

I'm generally not against gag orders. There are some I have been against as I believe they violated first amendment protections. Some I don't. This one I do. Criticism of public officials is a pretty established right for the people.

But, so far as I can tell, this is simply a case of us disagreeing, not about me misunderstanding anything.

Okay I will accept that.

 

[rjs330]

Free speech and bearing arms are both rights, protected by the Constitution. Both come with penalties, legal or otherwise, for misusing them.

Seems similar enough to me.

No it's not. Murder has never been protected by the constitution. Carry a gun is.

And Trump can still do that. But if he personally attacked specific courtroom personnel, he faced a penalty. That order has been stayed, pending appeal, so we'll have to see how it turns out. But I highly doubt the gag order will be lifted entirely, or even less likely be ruled unconstitutional.

I guess we'll see. Facing a penalty for using your legal right is without any doubt a restriction on that right. You said it yourself. If a court out a gag order on someone preventing them from criticizing Trump for a specific issue you without a doubt consider it a violation of free speech. And you'd be correct.

Sure. And Trump has always been, and remains entirely free to criticize the president all he likes. The gag orders never applied to that.

It's hard for me to believe you don't see the correlation between the president and other government officials.

You are probably correct in that it may hurt his case. But he has a right to do it even if it does. That's his own problem.

By the way, what's the name of the book you published?

 

[A2SG]

I disagree.

With what, exactly? Slander and libel verdicts do penalize the use of free speech, and that was your objection earlier. What are you disagreeing with here?

Because it seems you know what they are. And libel and slander ARE subject to the first amendment protections as well. Looking at the history behind them you can see that the First Amendment wasn't necessarily offering protections for defamation.

So how does the gag order imposed on Trump, which only penalizes him for making personal attacks on court personnel, any different?

But as the courts have ruled the government and government officials are not protected from criticism.

And Trump remains free to criticize them.

The gaga order was there to prevent Trump.or punish Trump for using his speech to criticize the government officials and proceedings.

Only for person attacks against court personnel. And that order is currently stayed pending appeal. I believe the order may be altered, but I highly doubt it will be dismissed entirely, or even less likely, ruled unconstitutional. But I guess we'll see.

This is exactly what free speech is about. Telling someone he will be punished for criticizing very specific government officials or government proceedings is a ridiculous constraint. It would be no different that telling someone you can't criticize the president for how he delt with COVID. That's one specific individual and one specific issue.

The difference, as I see it, is that personally attacking court personnel could impede the administration of a fair trial, and that is Judge Engoron's concern here. But I suppose we'll see how the appeals court views this.

No they aren't. No one said they were. In THIS specific case I believe the court violated Trump's first amendment right to criticize public officials and proceedings.

I doubt the appeals court will view it that way, though they may alter the order somewhat. But, again, we'll see.

I'm generally not against gag orders. There are some I have been against as I believe they violated first amendment protections. Some I don't. This one I do. Criticism of public officials is a pretty established right for the people.

Seems to me the chief objection some have to this is that it's being levied against Trump, and they feel Trump deserves special treatment, and should not be held accountable for...well, anything. But, I will admit, that's just my personal observation, and may not apply to you, personally.

Okay I will accept that.

Good to know. Thanks.

-- A2SG, though I wouldn't mind seeing the gag order lifted entirely...keep digging your hole deeper, Donny......

 

[A2SG]

No it's not. Murder has never been protected by the constitution. Carry a gun is.

Yep. And slander or libel have never been protected by the constitution, either.

Seems a valid comparison to me.

I guess we'll see. Facing a penalty for using your legal right is without any doubt a restriction on that right. You said it yourself. If a court out a gag order on someone preventing them from criticizing Trump for a specific issue you without a doubt consider it a violation of free speech. And you'd be correct.

For that specific instance, I'd agree with you. But Trump's case is different. Judge Engoron is trying to ensure Trump gets a fair trial, and his using social media to personally attack members of the court staff could impede that, so he imposed a gag order. This isn't a blanket restriction on criticizing government officials, but a specific one, and only on those specifically and directly involved with the trial in which he is the defendant.

Trump getting a fair trial is the goal here. And, let's face it, a fair trial is the last thing Trump wants.

It's hard for me to believe you don't see the correlation between the president and other government officials.

I do. And the gag order doesn't prevent Trump from criticizing the president or any other government officials. Just the specific court personnel involved in the trial for which he is the defendant.

You are probably correct in that it may hurt his case. But he has a right to do it even if it does. That's his own problem.

On that, I don't disagree. But the appeals court will rule on whether or not the gag order will stand, or be altered somewhat.

By the way, what's the name of the book you published?

PM me if you want to read it, I'll send a link.

-- A2SG, it's not a bad read, if I do say so myself.....

 

[rjs330]

With what, exactly? Slander and libel verdicts do penalize the use of free speech, and that was your objection earlier. What are you disagreeing with here?


So how does the gag order imposed on Trump, which only penalizes him for making personal attacks on court personnel, any different?


And Trump remains free to criticize them.


Only for person attacks against court personnel. And that order is currently stayed pending appeal. I believe the order may be altered, but I highly doubt it will be dismissed entirely, or even less likely, ruled unconstitutional. But I guess we'll see.


The difference, as I see it, is that personally attacking court personnel could impede the administration of a fair trial, and that is Judge Engoron's concern here. But I suppose we'll see how the appeals court views this.


I doubt the appeals court will view it that way, though they may alter the order somewhat. But, again, we'll see.


Seems to me the chief objection some have to this is that it's being levied against Trump, and they feel Trump deserves special treatment, and should not be held accountable for...well, anything. But, I will admit, that's just my personal observation, and may not apply to you, personally.


Good to know. Thanks.

-- A2SG, though I wouldn't mind seeing the gag order lifted entirely...keep digging your hole deeper, Donny......

I can sum it it up like this. Just like any right they are not absolute. I think you know this.

Slander and libel is covered in the first amendment to a certain point. The courts have consistently ruled that under narrow circumstances it is not covered. In others it is. However the courts have been clear that criticizing public officials and public proceeding are not covered the same way. You are much more free to criticize them and shouldn't suffer penalties for doing so due to their public service.

Thus punishing someone for criticizing you is limiting their free speech, because it's no longer free. Free means free from repercussion from government punishment. But you know this because you admitted you would feel it would be a violation of your right if Trump punished people for criticizing him for how he delt with CoVID.

This gag order was against Trump for being critical of a government officials and proceedings. Which in my mind is a violation of his Constitutional right. But we'll see.