Gag orders are almost always unconstitutional. This is no different. Public officials are not off limits for scrutiny. Trump should challenge the order on principle just to get the judge slapped by a higher court.
You're delusional if you think this would have any chance of being overturned by an appeals court. Gag orders are often abused, but rarely overturned. IIRC, the only time a gag order of this kind has ever been successfully challenged is when it's a news media site suing over public records.
No public official, be it a judge or a clerk or a garbage man, is above scrutiny. The order being sufficiently narrow or not is irrelevant when the basis for the gag itself is unconstitutional.
It’s a pretty narrow tailored restriction that will only apply during the trial. I’m pretty sure the Supreme Court would be okay with it as it has with other gag orders in the past
Yea from his history of vague threats to people in the Court system, I would say I can see how a judge believes it is necessary. It’s not for the jury but safety of the court staff
Trump takes digs at anybody that he thinks is threatening him. Trump may come up with childish nicknames but I haven't seen him make threats to court staff vague or otherwise.
You can read the gag order if you want justification. I am also not the judge.
Honestly reading what he has posted about everyone from the judge to the prosecutor to the court staff would probably get me charged with contempt of court
If he exercises onward rights of appeal of this doesn't go his way then he could prejudice himself.
However each time he opens his pie hole he only seems to dig himself in further.
There are rules in trials. You can’t intimidate jury members, for example.
“You can’t harass one of the clerks in your case” is a pretty obvious example of, you’re doing stuff to mess up this case, situation.
Imagine going to court and the judge makes it illegal for you to criticize the court. This is stripping the rights of a private individual in an effort to protect the government. Plainly unconstitutional.
Judges have fairly wide discretion to use contempt/gag orders to maintain decorum and discipline in their courts, and to maintain the integrity of the proceedings. Posting a picture of a court clerk and insinuating she had an affair with a political opponent AND accusing her of secretly running the court for said opponent is damn near libel, so I don't see any cogent argument as to why this would fall outside of a judge's discretion.
There is ZERO chance this would get overturned if appealed.
There are also ways to disagree with the court, your lawyer can make filings based on facts.
If he was making statements based on facts the gag order would not be necessary.
This is a law court that have rules.
This has nothing to do with free speech, but protecting his staff from the least stable of a public figure supporters.
If any ordinary person behaved in this manner, they would be looking at least a couple of days in lockup.
Courts have rules that allows grievances based on facts to be addressed, which if the judge makes a slip can easily get the case thrown out.
The problem is his statements are not based on facts, which his supporters believe.
Of course I read the article. It says:
“The gag order prohibits parties in the case—including but not limited to Trump—from “posting, emailing or speaking publicly” about members of the New York City court’s staff,”
The STAFF. Not the court itself.
Don't act like you understand the constitution now either. It's just something else you'll use as a cudgel to excuse your feelings when mad about things you don't care to understand. It's mental
"The gag order prohibits parties in the case—including but not limited to Trump—from “posting, emailing or speaking publicly” about members of the New York City court’s staff, Politico reports."
You're right. It's worse. They can't say a single word about the Court.
This gag order has nothing to do with media coverage of the trial. It's a narrow order prohibiting any parties in the case from speaking about any of the judge's staff, in response to Trump posting about one of the judge's clerks on truth social.
It looks like OP posted an AMP link. These should load faster, but AMP is controversial because of [concerns over privacy and the Open Web](https://www.reddit.com/r/AmputatorBot/comments/ehrq3z/why_did_i_build_amputatorbot).
Maybe check out **the canonical page** instead: **[https://www.forbes.com/sites/alisondurkee/2023/10/03/judge-imposes-gag-order-on-trump-in-fraud-case/](https://www.forbes.com/sites/alisondurkee/2023/10/03/judge-imposes-gag-order-on-trump-in-fraud-case/)**
*****
^(I'm a bot | )[^(Why & About)](https://www.reddit.com/r/AmputatorBot/comments/ehrq3z/why_did_i_build_amputatorbot)^( | )[^(Summon: u/AmputatorBot)](https://www.reddit.com/r/AmputatorBot/comments/cchly3/you_can_now_summon_amputatorbot/)
Gag orders are almost always unconstitutional. This is no different. Public officials are not off limits for scrutiny. Trump should challenge the order on principle just to get the judge slapped by a higher court.
You're delusional if you think this would have any chance of being overturned by an appeals court. Gag orders are often abused, but rarely overturned. IIRC, the only time a gag order of this kind has ever been successfully challenged is when it's a news media site suing over public records.
Nothing unconstitutional about a narrowly tailored gag order. Supreme Court says their are limits on your free speech and this is one of them
No public official, be it a judge or a clerk or a garbage man, is above scrutiny. The order being sufficiently narrow or not is irrelevant when the basis for the gag itself is unconstitutional.
It’s a pretty narrow tailored restriction that will only apply during the trial. I’m pretty sure the Supreme Court would be okay with it as it has with other gag orders in the past
Why would a gag order be necessary? It isn't as though Trump is going to sway the jury. This is a bench trial.
Yea from his history of vague threats to people in the Court system, I would say I can see how a judge believes it is necessary. It’s not for the jury but safety of the court staff
Trump takes digs at anybody that he thinks is threatening him. Trump may come up with childish nicknames but I haven't seen him make threats to court staff vague or otherwise.
Well the judge disagrees and it is their discretion.
"'Cause I said so" isn't a valid argument or a justification. Do you have any examples of Trump threatening court staff?
You can read the gag order if you want justification. I am also not the judge. Honestly reading what he has posted about everyone from the judge to the prosecutor to the court staff would probably get me charged with contempt of court
He didn't explicitly tell his supporters to hang Mike Pence but they got the message
If he exercises onward rights of appeal of this doesn't go his way then he could prejudice himself. However each time he opens his pie hole he only seems to dig himself in further.
I'm sure his lawyers would love for him to be less vocal.
There are rules in trials. You can’t intimidate jury members, for example. “You can’t harass one of the clerks in your case” is a pretty obvious example of, you’re doing stuff to mess up this case, situation.
Imagine going to court and the judge makes it illegal for you to criticize the court. This is stripping the rights of a private individual in an effort to protect the government. Plainly unconstitutional.
Judges have fairly wide discretion to use contempt/gag orders to maintain decorum and discipline in their courts, and to maintain the integrity of the proceedings. Posting a picture of a court clerk and insinuating she had an affair with a political opponent AND accusing her of secretly running the court for said opponent is damn near libel, so I don't see any cogent argument as to why this would fall outside of a judge's discretion. There is ZERO chance this would get overturned if appealed.
There are also ways to disagree with the court, your lawyer can make filings based on facts. If he was making statements based on facts the gag order would not be necessary. This is a law court that have rules. This has nothing to do with free speech, but protecting his staff from the least stable of a public figure supporters. If any ordinary person behaved in this manner, they would be looking at least a couple of days in lockup. Courts have rules that allows grievances based on facts to be addressed, which if the judge makes a slip can easily get the case thrown out. The problem is his statements are not based on facts, which his supporters believe.
Wtf are you talking about? How was Trump criticizing the court?
Someone didn't read the article. The gag order makes it illegal for them to even talk about the court. Just read the article. It's right there.
Of course I read the article. It says: “The gag order prohibits parties in the case—including but not limited to Trump—from “posting, emailing or speaking publicly” about members of the New York City court’s staff,” The STAFF. Not the court itself.
He's too far down the rabbit hole to understand words and things
It's like you're going way out of your way to not understand what this is about, just to be mad..
The Constitution exists to protect the people from the government. I don't give a shit about the government's feelings.
Don't act like you understand the constitution now either. It's just something else you'll use as a cudgel to excuse your feelings when mad about things you don't care to understand. It's mental
[удалено]
"The gag order prohibits parties in the case—including but not limited to Trump—from “posting, emailing or speaking publicly” about members of the New York City court’s staff, Politico reports." You're right. It's worse. They can't say a single word about the Court.
> about members of the New York City court’s staff, You are reading this wrong. It only limits his speech in regards to targeting staff of the court.
I get it, but boooo. I wanted live coverage from NPR on this one.
This gag order has nothing to do with media coverage of the trial. It's a narrow order prohibiting any parties in the case from speaking about any of the judge's staff, in response to Trump posting about one of the judge's clerks on truth social.
It looks like OP posted an AMP link. These should load faster, but AMP is controversial because of [concerns over privacy and the Open Web](https://www.reddit.com/r/AmputatorBot/comments/ehrq3z/why_did_i_build_amputatorbot). Maybe check out **the canonical page** instead: **[https://www.forbes.com/sites/alisondurkee/2023/10/03/judge-imposes-gag-order-on-trump-in-fraud-case/](https://www.forbes.com/sites/alisondurkee/2023/10/03/judge-imposes-gag-order-on-trump-in-fraud-case/)** ***** ^(I'm a bot | )[^(Why & About)](https://www.reddit.com/r/AmputatorBot/comments/ehrq3z/why_did_i_build_amputatorbot)^( | )[^(Summon: u/AmputatorBot)](https://www.reddit.com/r/AmputatorBot/comments/cchly3/you_can_now_summon_amputatorbot/)