211
Judge to consider imposing gag order on Trump in 2020 election interference case
(www.theguardian.com)
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 16 Oct 2023
211 points (96.5% liked)
News
23296 readers
1213 users here now
Welcome to the News community!
Rules:
1. Be civil
Attack the argument, not the person. No racism/sexism/bigotry. Good faith argumentation only. This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban. Do not respond to rule-breaking content; report it and move on.
2. All posts should contain a source (url) that is as reliable and unbiased as possible and must only contain one link.
Obvious right or left wing sources will be removed at the mods discretion. We have an actively updated blocklist, which you can see here: https://lemmy.world/post/2246130 if you feel like any website is missing, contact the mods. Supporting links can be added in comments or posted seperately but not to the post body.
3. No bots, spam or self-promotion.
Only approved bots, which follow the guidelines for bots set by the instance, are allowed.
4. Post titles should be the same as the article used as source.
Posts which titles don’t match the source won’t be removed, but the autoMod will notify you, and if your title misrepresents the original article, the post will be deleted. If the site changed their headline, the bot might still contact you, just ignore it, we won’t delete your post.
5. Only recent news is allowed.
Posts must be news from the most recent 30 days.
6. All posts must be news articles.
No opinion pieces, Listicles, editorials or celebrity gossip is allowed. All posts will be judged on a case-by-case basis.
7. No duplicate posts.
If a source you used was already posted by someone else, the autoMod will leave a message. Please remove your post if the autoMod is correct. If the post that matches your post is very old, we refer you to rule 5.
8. Misinformation is prohibited.
Misinformation / propaganda is strictly prohibited. Any comment or post containing or linking to misinformation will be removed. If you feel that your post has been removed in error, credible sources must be provided.
9. No link shorteners.
The auto mod will contact you if a link shortener is detected, please delete your post if they are right.
10. Don't copy entire article in your post body
For copyright reasons, you are not allowed to copy an entire article into your post body. This is an instance wide rule, that is strictly enforced in this community.
founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
Otoh, if they tell him to keep quiet and he doesn’t (is he even capable of shutting up? His own lawyers have never stopped him flapping his jaw so far), that makes things much easier: contempt of court is a simple matter to resolve.
Caveat that I'm not American, but wouldn't that be spun as a free speech violation?
https://law.yale.edu/mfia/case-disclosed/when-silence-isnt-golden-how-gag-orders-can-evade-first-amendment-protections
This article is a good overview, but essentially, gag orders are seen as a way to deal with an inherent conflict between the right to free speech and the right to a fair trial, and a judge's need to ensure a fair trial is seen as more important than a temporary restriction of free speech.
@BraveSirZaphod nailed it, but I wanted to add: Free speech is not unlimited, and it never has been. There are all sorts of classes of speech which rightly result in civil or criminal penalties. This notion that, when there is a conflict between rights, "free speech" always wins, is simply false.
What you said is correct, but just to elaborate:
The courts have established very specific categories where speech can be punished and/or restricted, including things like defamation, false advertising, and limited gag orders.
At the same time, they have made it nearly impossible to establish new categories of speech restriction. That's why courts uniformly reject arguments along the lines of "We have already restricted X speech, therefore free speech is not absolute, therefore we can now restrict Y speech".
Neither am I, but yes, probably it would be spun that way.
Possibly I was voicing my wish for a karmic result, rather than a politically pragmatic decision.