• Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.

rjs330

Well-Known Member
May 22, 2015
28,348
9,107
65
✟433,507.00
Gender
Male
Faith
Pentecostal
Yep. And slander or libel have never been protected by the constitution, either.

Seems a valid comparison to me.
Slander and libel is protected to a point by the first amendment. There is established law guiding how slander and libel work in conjunction with the first amendment.
Well that's the judges excuse anyway. His gag order has been overturned. Which means at least another judge disagrees with him. We'll see how it all turns out in the end.
I think Trump want a fair trial, but he also wants to speak his mind when he doesn't feel like he's getting one. Let's face it, Trump wants to be able to speak his mind on everything. And he will use his wild bombastic approach that so many can't stand.
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.
So he can't criticize THIS public official. Well gee then we can can certainly extrapolate that it would be okay to punish anyone for criticizing the president. AND our answer would be, the order doesn't prevent you from criticizing any other governmental officials just THIS one involving his decisions on THIS particular issue. Yeah I'm not seeing your logic here.
 
Upvote 0

A2SG

Gumby
Jun 17, 2008
9,831
3,828
Massachusetts
✟171,604.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
Other Religion
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Democrat
I can sum it it up like this. Just like any right they are not absolute. I think you know this.
Sure.

Sure. Public figures are generally exempt from libel or slander protections, to a point anyway. The gag order, however, did not apply generally to any public figures or public proceedings, only to specific court personnel directly involved in the trial for which Trump was a defendant. So I doubt a first amendment argument would cause a full reversal. Perhaps an adjustment, maybe allowing criticism of the judge himself, but not his clerks. But that's for the appeals court to decide.

Trump lacks the authority to impose that kind of restriction, and he never had it as president either. A judge, however, does have that authority, within the scope of the trial he's overseeing.

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.
No, it was against Trump for personally attacking court personnel. But, again, since it has been stayed pending appeal, we'll see what happens when the appeals court rules.

-- A2SG, the goal here, for the judge, was a fair trial. That is NOT what Trump wants, however....
 
Upvote 0

A2SG

Gumby
Jun 17, 2008
9,831
3,828
Massachusetts
✟171,604.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
Other Religion
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Democrat
Slander and libel is protected to a point by the first amendment. There is established law guiding how slander and libel work in conjunction with the first amendment.
Yup. But, per your argument, they do impose penalties on the use of free speech, just as the gag order does. So the comparison is valid. Neither are unconstitutional.

Well that's the judges excuse anyway. His gag order has been overturned.
Not overturned. Stayed, pending appeal.

Which means at least another judge disagrees with him. We'll see how it all turns out in the end.
We don't know how any of the other judges will rule yet.

I think Trump want a fair trial,
I highly doubt that. He's already been found guilty in this trial, let's not forget.

but he also wants to speak his mind when he doesn't feel like he's getting one.
He can still speak his mind. He just may have to pay if he personally attacks court personnel. But he's a rich guy, surely he can afford it, right?

Let's face it, Trump wants to be able to speak his mind on everything. And he will use his wild bombastic approach that so many can't stand.
Sure. He'll do anything he can to disrupt the proceedings and get a mistrial declared. Then he'll continue to delay, delay, delay.

SOP for him, really.

So he can't criticize THIS public official.
He can now. The appeal is still pending, so we'll have to see how it turns out.

The difference is the scope. General criticism of government officials or proceedings is protected. But, the gag order specifically applies to specific individuals in a very specific court proceeding, one in which Trump is a defendant, let's not forget. Judge Engoron's goal is a fair trial, and he felt Trump personally attacking his court personnel would impede that, so he imposed the gag order. Trump's appeal stayed the order, but it was not overturned. At least, not yet.

My logic isn't at issue here, frankly. I'm just stating the facts as I see them. Personally, I feel Trump should be free to put his foot in his mouth as often and as loudly as he likes. That aids the prosecution's case immensely.

-- A2SG, he really is the prosecutor's best friend here.....
 
Upvote 0

A2SG

Gumby
Jun 17, 2008
9,831
3,828
Massachusetts
✟171,604.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
Other Religion
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Democrat
I guess we'll just have to wait and see how it all plays out.

Is it? It's supposed to be, but I'm not convinced.
Seems to me the court has bent over backwards to accommodate Trump. I'd even to so far as to say Trump has been treated a heck of a lot more deferentially than any other defendant would have, had they acted as Trump has acted.

Yeah, Trump got a gag order. Anyone else would probably have been held in contempt and jailed by now.

-- A2SG, and if you think a gag order impedes his rights, well.....
 
Upvote 0

DaisyDay

I Did Nothing Wrong!! ~~Team Deep State
Jan 7, 2003
42,037
19,994
Finger Lakes
✟312,053.00
Country
United States
Gender
Female
Faith
Unitarian
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Others
It depends - if you are a co-defendant of his or a witness against him, then for the duration of the trial he is gagged (maybe, pending appeal).
 
Upvote 0

DaisyDay

I Did Nothing Wrong!! ~~Team Deep State
Jan 7, 2003
42,037
19,994
Finger Lakes
✟312,053.00
Country
United States
Gender
Female
Faith
Unitarian
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Others
He is a character that's for sure.
We know that the law clerk has received death threats after Trump posted scurrilous lies about her. Law clerks in NY are civil servants - which is different from public officials who are either elected or appointed. They are working a job. Sure, you can pretend that there is no correlation between Trump naming people as villains and certain of his most vociferous stans subsequently targeting them, but it is just pretense: "Oh, who will rid me of this troublesome priest?"

The concept of a fair trial not only applies to the defendants in a case, but also to the People who also need the trial to be fair.
 
Upvote 0

Pommer

CoPacEtiC SkEpTic
Sep 13, 2008
22,682
14,004
Earth
✟245,880.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
Deist
Marital Status
In Relationship
Politics
US-Democrat
Looks like it wasn't unconstitutional after all.

-- A2SG, well, so far....we'll see if this goes further up the chain.....
The NY Supreme Court?
Or will President Trump kick it over to the Federal Courts where he has at least some pull?
 
Upvote 0

A2SG

Gumby
Jun 17, 2008
9,831
3,828
Massachusetts
✟171,604.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
Other Religion
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Democrat
The NY Supreme Court?
Or will President Trump kick it over to the Federal Courts where he has at least some pull?
Isn't that his usual MO?

-- A2SG, anything to delay, delay, delay.....
 
Upvote 0

rturner76

Domine non-sum dignus
Site Supporter
May 10, 2011
11,529
4,030
Twin Cities
✟867,533.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
Catholic
Marital Status
Single
Politics
US-Green
For someone who claims they are not a Right Winger, you pretty much think that Donald Trump can do no wrong. I don't know if it's because of his white power stance or your own white victimhood stance but you would be more credible if you weren't trying to kiss his lips and promote his agenda no matter what it is. Do you honestly think that Trump is not a criminal with his dealings with Russian banks and his attempt to overthrow a legitimately elected government? Don't you remember that not one of his cases about voting wasn't thrown out of court? Look at who you seem to love, a zero-tax paying billionaire pornstar sexing cheater who dog whistles racist platitudes. You have no credibility when it comes to seeking an honest non-criminal for your president. Just stop pushing this agenda, it has no legs to stand on. Then you claim to not be a right-winger when every single thing you post is in support of the right wing? Absolutely ridiculous. It's time to ask yourself "what do I actually believe?" That a nontax-paying purchaser of sex and bragging about it is somehow moral? Get a grip dude. Mot even to mention him grandstanding about nuking who he doesn't like. What do actually stand for?
 
Upvote 0

Ana the Ist

Aggressively serene!
Feb 21, 2012
39,990
12,573
✟487,130.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Married
For someone who claims they are not a Right Winger, you pretty much think that Donald Trump can do no wrong.

I don't see how you got that from the OP.


I don't know if it's because of his white power stance or your own white victimhood stance

I'm not exactly sure what this refers to...

His white power stance?


but you would be more credible if you weren't trying to kiss his lips and promote his agenda no matter what it is.

The post you wrote this in reply to has nothing to do with "his agenda" and everything to do with "a fair trial".



Do you honestly think that Trump is not a criminal with his dealings with Russian banks

What exactly are you referring to here?



and his attempt to overthrow a legitimately elected government?

I would agree he plotted to stall the election until fraud was found...

I don't know if he didn't think fraud happened and he could, as you put it..."overthrow a legitimately elected government".


Don't you remember that not one of his cases about voting wasn't thrown out of court?

I do recall that.


Look at who you seem to love, a zero-tax paying billionaire inappropriate contentstar sexing cheater who dog whistles racist platitudes.

I don't know what you're saying here? Inappropriate contentstar? Zero tax paying? Dog whistles?

It's odd how everyone on the left talks about dog whistles as if they don't have a ton of them they blow all the time.


You have no credibility when it comes to seeking an honest non-criminal for your president.

I don't recall saying Trump was honest or a non-criminal. I wouldn't call any politician honest....and all presidents are criminals.

Let's be honest though...you don't really care about honesty or criminality.


Just stop pushing this agenda, it has no legs to stand on.

The "fair trial agenda"?


Then you claim to not be a right-winger when every single thing you post is in support of the right wing?

I doubt you read everything I post.


Absolutely ridiculous. It's time to ask yourself "what do I actually believe?"

I know what I believe. It's not something chosen like a fashionable set of clothes I throw on to impress my peers or receive praise.



That a nontax-paying purchaser of sex and bragging about it is somehow moral? Get a grip dude.

Again, I don't recall claiming Trump is "moral". I can see I didn't say that in the post you replied to.

Also...are we talking about Trump here, or the Biden family?
 
Reactions: Vambram
Upvote 0

rturner76

Domine non-sum dignus
Site Supporter
May 10, 2011
11,529
4,030
Twin Cities
✟867,533.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
Catholic
Marital Status
Single
Politics
US-Green
His white power stance?
Yeah, bragging about his German heritage luke he is an official Aryian ready to stand up for white power
The post you wrote this in reply to has nothing to do with "his agenda" and everything to do with "a fair trial".
I might be the case that you don't understand anything based on reality but Republican propaganda.
I doubt you read everything I post.

I know what I believe. It's not something chosen like a fashionable set of clothes I throw on to impress my peers or receive praise.
No, it's somethigs much more distrous like being blind to the propaganda that your party of choice pushes.
Again, I don't recall claiming Trump is "moral". I can see I didn't say that in the post you replied to.

Also...are we talking about Trump here, or the Biden family
That's some other right-wing agenda to put Joe Biden on trial for the crimes of his son. Is that how the justice system should work or should we be tried for our own crimes? I guess not in a Federalist Republican agenda scheme. Are you a part of that or do you believe in the laws that are actually on the books? Would you want to be put on trial for your son's crimes or make him deal with it? Not only that, they still haven't really proven anything yet. Should we just throw people in jail or impeach them when a crime hasn't been proven? Typical Republicans to shirk due process.
 
Upvote 0

Ana the Ist

Aggressively serene!
Feb 21, 2012
39,990
12,573
✟487,130.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Married
Yeah, bragging about his German heritage luke he is an official Aryian ready to stand up for white power

I don't recall this...can you provide an example?

I might be the case that you don't understand anything based on reality but Republican propaganda.

It might be...it might be that you're deeply biased and struggle with confirmation bias.

No, it's somethigs much more distrous like being blind to the propaganda that your party of choice pushes.

That Republicans aren't my party of choice.


That's some other right-wing agenda to put Joe Biden on trial for the crimes of his son.

His son is a criminal...and a bagman for his father.



Is that how the justice system should work or should we be tried for our own crimes?

I would say tried for our own crimes.



Are you a part of that or do you believe in the laws that are actually on the books? Would you want to be put on trial for your son's crimes or make him deal with it?

Ironically....you want reparations. You want me to pay you for what other white people did to other black people.

I think Joe should be investigated....and it's clear he isn't.


Not only that, they still haven't really proven anything yet. Should we just throw people in jail or impeach them when a crime hasn't been proven? Typical Republicans to shirk due process.

MeToo shirked due process....ruined men's lives without a trial. BLM shirked due process...found innocent cops guilty in the public eye.

Don't lecture me.

If you want to know why I left the left....it's real simple. Race essentialism.

It's oddly difficult to find a basic definition of race essentialism online but here's a rather good if not overly complex one.


When Joe Biden solidified the left as firmly race essentialist....and therefore racist...when he stated if you don't vote for him, you aren't black. The entire left had been slowly moving that direction about 10 years earlier with ideas they adopted like "white privilege" that were undeniably race essentialism...but Biden stated it more clearly than any professor could....

The left is for racists...and thats where they can now mostly be found.

Now, I don't see that as the worst thing in the world....it's still enough for me to not defend them. Are there racists on the right? Of course. Is it part and parcel to their political doctrine? No...but we can definitely say it is on the left. We've seen the racism they want to inject into schools....the workplace....and government. That's vile in my eyes.

Why would I support it?

Edit- I just realized how confusing reading that link may be for those...with poor reading skills. I'll just copy-paste the definition.

Racial essentialism is the self-aggrandizing but
delusory belief that the obsolete, pseudoscientific categories that organize the stratification and
segregation of the American caste system -
“race,” “black,” “white,” “mixed race,” and the
like – denote empirically meaningful states of
affairs, whether genetic, biological, social, or
visual; and that in particular, the categories by which some attempt to racialize themselves and

others denote actual facts that veridically locate each in relation to the others – i.e. put everyone in
their place. Racial essentialists attempt to
racialize themselves through self-referential
announcements of their “racial” identity in terms of those outmoded categories. They thereby
attempt to racialize their audiences as well, by implication, as either conforming to or diverging

from that “racial” identity. These attempts fail systematically and by definition, because those
categories do not refer to any actual genetic, biological, social, or visual facts at all.
But then racial essentialism does not require
any evidential foundation for its ascriptions.
Rather, it reifies those crude racial stereotypes into an unconvincing simulacrum of social reality
in an obsessive-compulsive ritual of wishful thinking. That is the ritual racial essentialists invite
their audiences to reenact.
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0

ThatRobGuy

Part of the IT crowd
Site Supporter
Sep 4, 2005
28,266
17,050
Here
✟1,471,235.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Single
Politics
US-Others
But he was. The gag order didn't prevent him from commenting on the case...only attacking court personnel.
On that we would agree... A gag order within the limited scope of protecting key person(s) identities is reasonable considering his (and his inner circle's) history of basically doxxing people.
But, that aside, how does public commentary aid his defense? The case isn't being tried in the media....though Trump sure seems like he'd prefer it were.
On that, I would disagree a bit.

One of the benefits of a speedy trial is so a case can be tried in actual court instead of first being tried in the court of public opinion (with the actual court hearings happening weeks to months later)

Living in the information age, that's becoming increasingly difficult. How do you find judges, jurors, expert witnesses, etc... that haven't already had their opinions shaped in one direction or the other? This is a concern I brought up in the lead-up to the Rittenhouse trial.

Given that the court of public opinion is an unfortunate reality that's not going away anytime soon (or ever?), it seems unfair to allow everyone else to provide public commentary on the case, but not the person who's actually on the hot seat.

...and I'm not trying to be a Trump defender here. I think life would be better if he faded away into obscurity. But my sense of "good for the goose is good for the gander" mentality holds fast even if I don't particularly like the person on the hot seat.
 
Upvote 0

Ana the Ist

Aggressively serene!
Feb 21, 2012
39,990
12,573
✟487,130.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Married
We know that the law clerk has received death threats after Trump posted scurrilous lies about her.

Do we?

I haven't seen any...



Law clerks in NY are civil servants - which is different from public officials who are either elected or appointed. They are working a job.

Police are civil servants....openly, and even viciously criticizing everything about their job performance is considered free speech.

You should know this...I'm certain of it.
 
Upvote 0