![]() Witness intimidation is a bigger problem than tainting the jury pool. Opinion Editorial: The gag order on Trump isn’t an overreach. The law is clear that speech can’t be restricted to prevent government officials from being criticized or even vilified. What is particularly troubling about Chutkan’s order is that it seems primarily concerned with protecting prosecutors and court personnel from Trump’s vitriol. Stuart (1976), the justices held that the courts can almost never keep the press from reporting on criminal cases, even when the goal is to protect a defendant’s right to a fair trial.Īlthough the Supreme Court hasn’t considered gag orders on parties to a case and their lawyers, the same strong presumption should apply against such prior restraints. ![]() ![]() The Supreme Court held that there is a strong presumption against orders preventing speech.Įven more to the point, in Nebraska Press Assn. United States (1971), for example, the justices held that the courts could not constitutionally enjoin newspapers from publishing the Pentagon Papers, a history of America’s involvement in the Vietnam War. The Supreme Court has long held that court orders prohibiting speech constitute “prior restraint” and are allowed only in extraordinary and compelling circumstances.
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
Details
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |