650
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
this post was submitted on 28 Oct 2023
650 points (96.7% liked)
politics
31197 readers
3290 users here now
Welcome to the discussion of US Politics!
Rules:
- Post only links to articles. Title must fairly describe link contents. If your title differs from the site’s, it should only be to add context or be more descriptive. Do not post entire articles in the body or in the comments.
Links must be to the original source, not an aggregator like Google Amp, MSN, or Yahoo.
Example:
- Articles must be relevant to US politics and contain quality and original content. Social Media adjacent hosts like Substack are allowed, but ONLY if they tie back to a company/subsidiary. No personal or friend group blogs and no self-promotion. Articles should be worth reading. Clickbait, stub articles, and re-hosted or stolen content are not allowed. Check your source for Reliability and Bias here.
- Be civil, No violations of TOS. It’s OK to say the subject of an article is behaving like a (pejorative, pejorative). It’s NOT OK to say another USER is (pejorative). Strong language is fine, just not directed at other members. Engage in good-faith and with respect! This includes accusing other users of being bots or paid actors.
- No memes, trolling, misinformation, or low-effort posts/comments (including reposts). If you see posts like this that anger you, do not engage. Report, block, and live a happier life than they do. Any slap-fight is subject to comment removals. Fights full of rule violations will result in temporary bans to cool off.
- No manipulating votes via bots or alt accounts; this will result in permanent bans. Vote based on comment quality, not agreement. This community aims to foster discussion; please reward people for putting effort into articulating their viewpoint, even if you disagree with it.
- No hate speech, slurs, celebrating death, advocating violence, or abusive language. This will result in an account ban. Usernames containing racist, or inappropriate slurs will be permanently banned.
We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules and use critical thinking when reading, posting, and commenting. Users that repeatedly have comments or posts removed, weaponize reports, or violate the code of conduct, will be banned.
All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users. The reason(s) behind moderator action(s) are publicly available through the Modlog.
That's all the rules!
Civic Links
• Congressional Awards Program
• Library of Congress Legislative Resources
• U.S. House of Representatives
Partnered Communities:
• News
founded 3 years ago
MODERATORS
"some reason" being the "first amendment".
You try it and see how far the 1st amendment gets you. Most defendants don't get to trash the judge with no consequences.
[citation needed]
People keep saying this but from what I can tell "gag orders" aren't common.
They’re not common but they’re also not rare. More often, defendants are not incredibly corrupt loudmouth morons, don’t have any public following, or are in jail, and it’s not needed.
You know that a gag order is a specific restriction on free speech that courts can issue, right? That's literally what they are for.
The gag order doesn't apply to Judge Engoron. Both he and Judge Chutkan in the DC case specifically exempted themselves from being covered by their respective gag orders. The logic is that the 1st Amendment protects criticism of federal judges. He can't, however, threaten federal judges, so it'll be interesting to see how far he pushes it. Unfortunately, in the past he's shown a surprising amount of restraint in skating just up to the line, but not actually crossing it.
They don't allow a judge to declare whatever they want. Trump is appealing one of his gag orders and will likely be successful in part.
Judges can't simply do whatever they want.
Gag orders on indicted felons who can't shut up are extremely common. He isn't likely to prevail on that.
They can't stop him from saying just anything, gag orders need to be narrow and serve a justice purpose.
That's why part of the gag is likely to be changed as its overly broad.
They haven't prevented him from saying anything. They prevent him from attacking witnesses and court employees which is well within scope of a gag order.
Which isn't what this thread was talking about at the start...
"Congress shall make no law...".
This is the judiciary: different branch of government.
The executive could also issue an order that restricts free speech and not violate the first amendment.
The court cannot violate the freedom of speech willy nilly. It must serve the purpose of justice being served.