• secretlyaddictedtolinux@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    1
    arrow-down
    8
    ·
    edit-2
    5 months ago

    if the court rules are that both sides are supposed to talk to determine what is reasonable to discuss and not discuss, and the prosecutor just totally ignored that because “who cares” and Trump is clearly out of line, then the prosecutor still ignored the court rules. good for that judge for asserting that prosecutors can’t just do whatever they want. i thought her words were actually funny and clever. she’s pointing out that the rules specify it’s really supposed to be a meaningful attempt, not just faking it or ignoring it or trivially trying to say they tried. A gag order is a big limit to free speech, I wish they were never even allowed, but she’s at least being sensible with this and rejecting it on a limited basis based on procedural reasons

    • Dkarma@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      10
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      5 months ago

      That may fly if Trump already didn’t have a history of skirting or outright defying gag orders already. This lady needs to be removed immediately on nat sec grounds. This is fucking absurd.

      • secretlyaddictedtolinux@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        5 months ago

        Even if you don’t like Trump, procedural fairness is important. You aren’t supposed to just ignore procedure when it comes to a defendant being criminally prosecuted. There has been a trend of more and more procedural fairness being ignored because prosecutors know they can get away with it and it will be meaningless on appeal. The judge had to rule this way and if she hadn’t she would have been a horrible judge. What is sad is that it actually had to be appealed to get to the level of normal procedural fairness. Even very awful people are supposed to get fair procedure in the US. The time procedure and fairness matter most is when someone is being deprived of liberty, that’s when you want the rules to be fair, not broken. What would have been a better ruling? If she said “Eh, it’s fine, the prosecutors can do whatever and it won’t matter on appeal anyway because of the harmless error rule.” Gag orders should also be illegal. The First Amendment was not supposed to be some weak idea that occasionally let’s people speak their views. It’s supposed to protect people like Trump who many people think have detestable speech.

        Also, I hate Trump’s views on Trans people and his treatment towards those who are different or he perceives as different. I have never voted for Trump. Give this judge a break, that was a good ruling.