• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Should a defendant in a criminal case or lawsuit be allowed to intimidate witnesses, jurors or court personnel under the 1st Amendment?

I

independentusa

DP Veteran
Joined
Nov 10, 2016
Messages
14,607
Reaction score
9,305
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
It seems that this question has become the center of the cases against Trump, and it goes to the heart of where free speech ends and intimidation begins. So, should a defendant be allowed to say anything, including intimidating language, about Jurors, witnesses and court personnel as part of his free speech even if it seems to be an attempt to intimidate those involved in the person's court case?
 
Of course not, not even if you are Donald Trump. Witness intimidation, no matter how it is done, is illegal and free speech does not extend to illegal acts. Judges know the law, posters on a discussion board generally don't.
 
Trump hasn't tried to intimidate any jurors, witnesses or court personnel.

He has done nothing more than express his opinion...which is protected by the 1st Amendment.
 
Of course not, and they can't already. P01135809 is acting in ways that would incarcerate any other criminal defendant.

My guess is that when the Jan 6 trial starts he will do it again. Judge Chutkan will put him in a holding cell for the afternoon. When she brings him back to the courtroom she'll ask if he wants to go back again tomorrow. And then tell him how he can avoid it.
 
Mycroft said:
Trump hasn't tried to intimidate any jurors, witnesses or court personnel.

He has done nothing more than express his opinion...which is protected by the 1st Amendment.
Click to expand...


What would you call this?

“IF YOU GO AFTER ME, I’M COMING AFTER YOU!”

To me, that just sounds like a freaking mob boss. But to you, it's apparently just "an opinion".
 
Mycroft said:
Trump hasn't tried to intimidate any jurors, witnesses or court personnel.

He has done nothing more than express his opinion...which is protected by the 1st Amendment.
Click to expand...
Well, we now that's bullshit. Libel is against the law, not protected by the 1st Amendment, and Trump has already been found guilty of it, in fact, just this year alone. TWICE !!
So .... there's that.
 
Of course not.

Individual rights end where they begin to negatively affect another individual.

Slander, n : the utterance of false charges or misrepresentations which defame and damage another's reputation
 
MamboDervish said:
Well, we now that's bullshit. Libel is against the law, not protected by the 1st Amendment, and Trump has already been found guilty of it, in fact, just this year alone. TWICE !!
So .... there's that.
Click to expand...
Libel and intimidation are two different things.

Try again.
 
Mycroft said:
Libel and intimidation are two different things.

Try again.
Click to expand...
Libel can be very intimidating, especially when you have a cult of attack dogs ready to pounce on anyone you choose to target with your libelous lies.

Try again.

Or, don't bother embarrassing yourself any further.
 
Of course not. And if a defendant goes after court personel and abuses or treats them poorly, they are going to get the bad side of the judge. They can get you on contempt for that shit.
 

Methinks it would come down to that word "intimidation".

"If you testify against me, I'm gonna get you" ---NO

"I used to be your friend, and after this we won't be friends" --YES

I can imagine a whole litany of things in the middle.
 
Peacenik said:
Of course not.

Individual rights end where they begin to negatively affect another individual.

Slander, n : the utterance of false charges or misrepresentations which defame and damage another's reputation
Click to expand...
Which is adjudicated, not fabricated by the media (or anyone else at the time of utterance)
 
MamboDervish said:
Libel can be very intimidating, especially when you have a cult of attack dogs ready to pounce on anyone you choose to target with your libelous lies.

Try again.

Or, don't bother embarrassing yourself any further.
Click to expand...
Maybe libel can be intimidating, but that doesn't mean that anything Trump has said is intimidating...or, even, libel.

Try again.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Menu
Log in
Register
Cookies are required to use this site. You must accept them to continue using the site. Learn more…