5 ms·

I'm not a lawyer, so take everything I've got to say with a grain of salt, but I can't see why people don't just ignore gag orders as they're a clear and comple

I'm not a lawyer, so take everything I've got to say with a grain of salt, but I can't see why people don't just ignore gag orders as they're a clear and complete violation of your first amendment rights which "...prohibit[s] the making of any law...abridging the freedom of speech, infringing on the freedom of the press..." Thus, near as I can tell, the gag order is categorically illegal - a law which abridges your freedom of speech. Surely that's gotta stand up in court? Or what good is the Constitution? If the Constitution cannot guarantee that which it was written to guarantee, then what's the point in having it? Lest we forget the part of the Presidential oath "...and will to the best of my Ability, preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States." So the President is bound to protect the Constitution... There's no part of the Presidential oath which binds the President to protect the law. Which tacitly implies that the Constitution is more important than the law. So theoretically (actual consequences not withstanding), if you were to ignore a gag order, the President himself should stand next to you in court to guarantee your first amendment rights to freedom of speech and have the gag order thrown out as a violation of the Constitution.

csense 13y ago
> abridging the freedom of speech The freedom of speech isn't absolute. For example, you can get arrested for shouting "Fire!" in a crowded movie theater. > I can't see why people don't just ignore gag orders Because people don't think it's worth the consequences. Which might include: Going to jail, financially ruinous fines and/or legal expenses, company being forced out of business which destroys your workers' livelihoods and shareholder value, being sued by shareholders for breaching "fiduciary duty" (making decisions that are blatantly bad for the company). My guess is that, for a lot of people, the potential reward doesn't justify the stakes.
Anechoic 13y ago
Thus, near as I can tell, the gag order is categorically illegal - a law which abridges your freedom of speech. Freedom of speech is not absolute, as demonstrated by any number of SCOTUS rulings, with defamation, obscenity and incitement being the more notable exceptions.
objclxt 13y ago
> the gag order is categorically illegal - a law which abridges your freedom of speech. Surely that's gotta stand up in court? Or what good is the Constitution? A lot of people have a misconception that the Constitution guarantees total, absolute freedom of speech, when it simply does not. The rather clichéd example would be not getting to shout 'Fire!' in a crowded theater. There are better examples to be found in real life: it would be illegal to say or print something that had the very real possibility of inciting someone to commit violence (as in Planned Parenthood vs ACLA: the ACLA was a pro-life group that encouraged people to take violent action against reproductive health workers). So I think your mistake is in assuming the first amendment is absolute. It isn't, and for very good reasons upheld by the courts for over a century. Is a gag order in itself bad? Not always. Sometimes gag orders serve legitimate purposes: for example, to prevent prejudicial information in a trial such as a defendant's previous, unrelated convictions from becoming public. But regardless, the idea that the first amendment means you get to "say what you like" with no exceptions is a fallacy.
- daemin 13y ago
  I remember reading about how the USA "freedom of speech" is not "freedom of general speech", but more like "freedom of political speech". Though I am not sure how well that was enforced with communism in the 50's and 60's, and now with theocratic political systems.
  - jlgreco 13y ago
    While seemingly a sensible limitation to free speech, the "shouting fire" line was coined to justify prosecuting a man who was protesting the draft. (This man argued that the draft was a form of involuntary servitude. I think he had a solid point.) In a nutshell, it was argued that in this case the political speech represented a "clear and present danger" to national security. Never concede to them anything. Any slack you give them, they will use to hang you.
    - rsynnott 13y ago
      > This man argued that the draft was a form of involuntary servitude. I think he had a solid point. In a modern context, absolutely; most laws and treaties banning unfree labour specifically exempt military service, which is considered unfree labour by just about all authorities on the matter.
icambron 13y ago
I'm not a lawyer either, but I'm pretty sure that isn't how it works. An illegal gag order can be proven invalid and thus lifted, but you'd still be held in contempt of court for violating it before it was lifted. I know that Kafkaesque logic applies to court orders that turn out to be improper.

csense 13y ago

> abridging the freedom of speech The freedom of speech isn't absolute. For example, you can get arrested for shouting "Fire!" in a crowded movie theater. > I can't see why people don't just ignore gag orders Because people don't think it's worth the consequences. Which might include: Going to jail, financially ruinous fines and/or legal expenses, company being forced out of business which destroys your workers' livelihoods and shareholder value, being sued by shareholders for breaching "fiduciary duty" (making decisions that are blatantly bad for the company). My guess is that, for a lot of people, the potential reward doesn't justify the stakes.

Anechoic 13y ago

Thus, near as I can tell, the gag order is categorically illegal - a law which abridges your freedom of speech. Freedom of speech is not absolute, as demonstrated by any number of SCOTUS rulings, with defamation, obscenity and incitement being the more notable exceptions.

objclxt 13y ago

> the gag order is categorically illegal - a law which abridges your freedom of speech. Surely that's gotta stand up in court? Or what good is the Constitution? A lot of people have a misconception that the Constitution guarantees total, absolute freedom of speech, when it simply does not. The rather clichéd example would be not getting to shout 'Fire!' in a crowded theater. There are better examples to be found in real life: it would be illegal to say or print something that had the very real possibility of inciting someone to commit violence (as in Planned Parenthood vs ACLA: the ACLA was a pro-life group that encouraged people to take violent action against reproductive health workers). So I think your mistake is in assuming the first amendment is absolute. It isn't, and for very good reasons upheld by the courts for over a century. Is a gag order in itself bad? Not always. Sometimes gag orders serve legitimate purposes: for example, to prevent prejudicial information in a trial such as a defendant's previous, unrelated convictions from becoming public. But regardless, the idea that the first amendment means you get to "say what you like" with no exceptions is a fallacy.

daemin 13y ago
I remember reading about how the USA "freedom of speech" is not "freedom of general speech", but more like "freedom of political speech". Though I am not sure how well that was enforced with communism in the 50's and 60's, and now with theocratic political systems.
- jlgreco 13y ago
  While seemingly a sensible limitation to free speech, the "shouting fire" line was coined to justify prosecuting a man who was protesting the draft. (This man argued that the draft was a form of involuntary servitude. I think he had a solid point.) In a nutshell, it was argued that in this case the political speech represented a "clear and present danger" to national security. Never concede to them anything. Any slack you give them, they will use to hang you.
  - rsynnott 13y ago
    > This man argued that the draft was a form of involuntary servitude. I think he had a solid point. In a modern context, absolutely; most laws and treaties banning unfree labour specifically exempt military service, which is considered unfree labour by just about all authorities on the matter.

icambron 13y ago

I'm not a lawyer either, but I'm pretty sure that isn't how it works. An illegal gag order can be proven invalid and thus lifted, but you'd still be held in contempt of court for violating it before it was lifted. I know that Kafkaesque logic applies to court orders that turn out to be improper.