Some context missing from that headline. He is restricted from "attacking" Jack Smith, his staff, witnesses or court staff. Not just "making public statements".
No. Not at all. I was responding to someone who was saying that "One limit on the First Amendment would beckon another", and was suggesting that gag orders were unconstitutional because of that.
I was pointing out that there were ALREADY limits on freedom of speech. And I listed some of those limitations.
I think the issue is that my comment got lost in the thread, and it's not readily apparent who/what I was responding to.
I should have quoted him in my response, just so no one would have been confused.
My interpretation of this in the ORIGINAL sense is metered thusly: "Even if what is said makes me furious, I will defend his right to speak at all times"...
If we used that interpretation, then child pornography would be legal. Remember above, where I pointed out some of the limitations we have on free speech? Child pornography is one of those limitations.
You understand that freedom of speech also covers things like media, right? Films, photos, texts, etc...?
It's not just about things that are verbally spoken.
So does this mean that you would defend someone's right to publish child pornography, even if it makes you furious?
Some context missing from that headline. He is restricted from "attacking" Jack Smith, his staff, witnesses or court staff. Not just "making public statements".
One limit in the 1st amendment will beckon another and another.
This will be overturned.
Criminal defendants can have their freedom of speech rights curtailed. I think this is a special case because of implications on political campaigning
I think the ruling addresses this. She didn't grant everything the DOJ asked for
Corrupt peeps gonna corrupt.
He's a defendant on release pending a criminal case. Restrictions on defendants are routine.
One restriction already in place he cannot talk to any witnesses without counsel present.
Look for it to be overturned within 48hrs
Yeah, limits like slander, harassment, incitement of violence, and child pornography, just to name a few.
Frankly, I'm finding it alarming that so many patriots don't really understand what is and is not allowed under Freedom of Speech.
This is stuff we learned in middle school. At least some of us did.
I'm getting the impression many people here think Freedom of Speech means you can say anything, anywhere.
Yes, in middle school. WE sure did.
It makes me a little concerned you are inferring Trump is committing one of those offenses for which they would need a gag order.
I'm guessing (hope) you didn't mean to, but I'm not sure why you seem to be so open to this seeing as he is only speaking truths.
Someone getting hit with a gag order for speaking truth should not be allowed.
No. Not at all. I was responding to someone who was saying that "One limit on the First Amendment would beckon another", and was suggesting that gag orders were unconstitutional because of that.
I was pointing out that there were ALREADY limits on freedom of speech. And I listed some of those limitations.
I think the issue is that my comment got lost in the thread, and it's not readily apparent who/what I was responding to.
I should have quoted him in my response, just so no one would have been confused.
My interpretation of this in the ORIGINAL sense is metered thusly: "Even if what is said makes me furious, I will defend his right to speak at all times"...
If we used that interpretation, then child pornography would be legal. Remember above, where I pointed out some of the limitations we have on free speech? Child pornography is one of those limitations.
You understand that freedom of speech also covers things like media, right? Films, photos, texts, etc...?
It's not just about things that are verbally spoken.
So does this mean that you would defend someone's right to publish child pornography, even if it makes you furious?
Because that's what it seems here.
Yes, when this group hears "antithesis of democracy" we immediately think freedom of speech.
Lucky for everyone here USA is a REPUBLIC
Exactly. A Banana Republic to be more specific.
In this case “attacking” = discussing, criticizing or questioning him and his actions
Yeah I'd like to see the language used to define that term. In court they mentioned him calling JS a "thug"
But did he lie?
they cant handle the truth
Everything short of their npc narrative is a “lie” to their standards