These people are very creepy.

And also none of them seems to know how to tell the truth.

because they have been breaking it for a long time without any repercussions.

but for other people.

I wonder if any one who works for Trump is normal.

Gates is the tip of the iceberg that is the biggest crime syndicate in history.

He said we would get tired of winning.
Instead, we’re getting worn out chanting Lock Em Up.

if he can't comply with the terms of his bail. How hard is it to keep your effing mouth shut?

and throw him in the slammer? This judge should be quite pissed by now.

The idea of a judge ordering an accused to be silent and not speak out to tell their side of the story makes this civil libertarian nauseous.

If freedom of speech doesn't include the freedom to shout "I'm innocent!" then it doesn't seem to count for much.

I realize the weight of authority is against me, but I don't think simply being accused of a crime should cause the 1st Amendment to go out the window.

Being punished for speaking out against what one may feel is an unfair prosecution is what I'd expect from the USSR, not the USA.

Even if it's their 10th DUI ... should be legally barred from drinking alcohol (unless they're in jail) ... because drinking alcohol is a legal act for adults in this country.

HOWEVER ... if, in order to avoid a more stringent sentence, you yourself STIPULATE, via a 'plea deal' that you are waiving that particular 'right' ... then you need to capitulate to 'the system' and do ... what you've agreed to do ... as part of said 'plea deal'.

Which I'm pretty sure is likely the case in this particular instance. The 'gag order' was agreed to by the criminal at hand .. and therefore, they've waived their '1st Amendment Right' ...

Seems pretty straight-forward. I mean, people don't get to even vote (another very basic right) in most states if they have recent (or even in some cases, ANY) felonies on their record.

To me that also friggin' sucks ... even if you've 'done your time' you're still a 'felon who can't vote'. That seems VERY f***ing wrong to me. But ... it's apparently within the law.

And TBH, I pretty much feel the same about 'sex offender registries' ... but I'm not getting into that here. We LOVE those here at DU, so ... I won't rock the boat with my personal feelings about the subject ... And no, I'm not on one, never have been, never will be. But don't agree with them in principle, unless you're on parole/probation.

The circumstances here are not within the purview of the first amendment. Don't feel bad. Many people don't really know what the first amendment means.

I'll admit we didn't cover this issue in law school, but whenever the government controls speech, the first amendment is implicated.

I wouldn't be surprised if courts hold that gag orders are permitted under strict scrutiny, but I would be surprised if any court actually held that it isn't a first amendment issue. Have a cite?

Clinic has a 24 October 2017 article worth reading, "When Silence Isn’t Golden: How Gag Orders Can Evade First Amendment Protections."

https://law.yale.edu/mfia/case-disclosed/when-silence-isnt-golden-how-gag-orders-can-evade-first-amendment-protections

Two additional points are relevant . The 1st is that it's unclear that the gag order meets the Strict Scrutiny required for such orders, just as it is for prior restraint criteria, cite: Near v. Minnesota, 283 U.S. 697 (1931), to protect crucial military information, prohibit obscenity, or to prevent inciting violence.

The 2nd is that on it's face, Gate's statement appears to comply with the order because his statement, "As you may be aware, there is a gag order on the case, so I am not able to talk specifically about the case. However, I can say that because of people like you we will have the resources to fight." appears consistent with the Judges order.

Also, given that this was done under the plausible guise of legal defense fund fundraising, I wonder if right to counsel arguments might apply?