This weekly roundup thread is intended for all culture war posts. 'Culture war' is vaguely defined, but it basically means controversial issues that fall along set tribal lines. Arguments over culture war issues generate a lot of heat and little light, and few deeply entrenched people ever change their minds. This thread is for voicing opinions and analyzing the state of the discussion while trying to optimize for light over heat.
Optimistically, we think that engaging with people you disagree with is worth your time, and so is being nice! Pessimistically, there are many dynamics that can lead discussions on Culture War topics to become unproductive. There's a human tendency to divide along tribal lines, praising your ingroup and vilifying your outgroup - and if you think you find it easy to criticize your ingroup, then it may be that your outgroup is not who you think it is. Extremists with opposing positions can feed off each other, highlighting each other's worst points to justify their own angry rhetoric, which becomes in turn a new example of bad behavior for the other side to highlight.
We would like to avoid these negative dynamics. Accordingly, we ask that you do not use this thread for waging the Culture War. Examples of waging the Culture War:
-
Shaming.
-
Attempting to 'build consensus' or enforce ideological conformity.
-
Making sweeping generalizations to vilify a group you dislike.
-
Recruiting for a cause.
-
Posting links that could be summarized as 'Boo outgroup!' Basically, if your content is 'Can you believe what Those People did this week?' then you should either refrain from posting, or do some very patient work to contextualize and/or steel-man the relevant viewpoint.
In general, you should argue to understand, not to win. This thread is not territory to be claimed by one group or another; indeed, the aim is to have many different viewpoints represented here. Thus, we also ask that you follow some guidelines:
-
Speak plainly. Avoid sarcasm and mockery. When disagreeing with someone, state your objections explicitly.
-
Be as precise and charitable as you can. Don't paraphrase unflatteringly.
-
Don't imply that someone said something they did not say, even if you think it follows from what they said.
-
Write like everyone is reading and you want them to be included in the discussion.
On an ad hoc basis, the mods will try to compile a list of the best posts/comments from the previous week, posted in Quality Contribution threads and archived at /r/TheThread. You may nominate a comment for this list by clicking on 'report' at the bottom of the post and typing 'Actually a quality contribution' as the report reason.
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
Notes -
Trump got hit by two gag orders from two different judges. The precedent in this area of law is severely underdeveloped, both because so few defendants get gagged, and of those who do very few have the resources or energy to mount an appeal. Jacob Sullum writes a great overview of the issue:
So to avoid the common pitfalls in discussions like this, set aside Trump for a moment. Should judges have any authority to impose gag orders? If so, what limits should be in place? After working out the questions in theory, how does your position apply to Trump?
I think gag orders can be appropriate in a very limited set of circumstances. For example let's say a newspaper owner is charged with murder in a small town. He should always have the absolute and unrestricted right to discuss the allegations against him and mount a defense in public. There are some areas where it starts to get cloudy for me, like for example if he hires an investigator (legal & appropriate) to dig into the history of the main witness against him (legal & appropriate) and he gets his hands on her diary (potentially legal & potentially appropriate). He then spends the lead-up to the murder trial publishing massive coverage the lurid details of all her sex kinks and fantasies, which isn't implicated in the murder charges. To me this starts to look like witness tampering/intimidation, where the defendant is humiliating a witness with the intent to discourage her from giving testimony.
So my answer is here would be yes, judges can impose gag orders but they should be extremely narrow. The operating principle should be to always allow defendants to discuss the direct charges against them, including the ability to discredit witness credibility. There's a blurry line between when someone is discrediting a witness on relevant matters, and when they're just trying to make their life hell to discourage them from testifying. An example of this blurry line is what happened to SBF, where his pretrial release was revoked in part because he leaked Caroline Ellison's diary to the NYT and because he seemed to have been coordinating testimony with FTX's general counsel.
So with that out of the way, how does it apply to Trump? Judge Chutkan's order restricts him from making statements that "target" the prosecutor, court staff, and "reasonably foreseeable witnesses or the substance of their testimony". Practically speaking, it goes without saying that it's a terrible idea to talk shit about the court or prosecutor while your case(s) is pending. There are some obvious areas where Trump's commentary is inane and irrelevant, like posting a photo of a judge's law clerk and claiming she's "Schumer's girlfriend", or posting about the prosecutor's family members. Discrediting witnesses is harder to draw a clean line on, because again there's a gradient between discrediting and intimidating. I think Trump should have the absolute and unrestricted right to discuss any of his charges and discredit any evidence and witnesses against him. While I disagree with that part of the ruling, I don't know how I would rephrase that clause, and so my reaction is that in these close cases we should default to allowing speech rather than restricting it.
Edit: @guajalote changed my mind on the propriety of Judge Engoron's order prohibiting "personal attacks on my members of my court staff". I agree that criticizing government officials should always be protected, even if the speech is targeting irrelevant or uninvolved individuals. A narrower order prohibiting incitement would've been more appropriate.
I'm not sure why it's important to discredit a witness in the public eye, instead of at trial where you're allowed to say all those things directly to the judge and jury.
Especially in light of the negative externalities to the system itself, ie if we allow defendants to make witnesses and judges and prosecutors and jurors lives a living nightmare right up until the line of 'definitely undeniably direct tampering', then that sets a precedent where no sane person wants to fill any of those roles, and the process of justice is impeded.
Also, I agree that a fairly narrow range of things that someone might say about their trial should qualify as tampering/intimidation. However, defendants have a strong motive to preferentially say those things, and therefore we should a priori expect a lot of the things they would say to fall into that category, and therefore expect proper gag orders to cover a lot of their actual intended speech.
I actually think it is a good thing that attempting to launch a spurious prosecution of the leading opposition candidate in an election year makes your life a living nightmare. It isn't like the indictment is secret or anything - the rabid Trump supporters can just go read Judge Chutkan's name in a newspaper if they really want to find out who she is. And further on from that, it isn't like Trump needs to tell his followers to do anything - they are going to perceive (correctly? who knows) that the deep state is trying to prevent them from having their voices heard in the democratic system, and that's going to make a lot of them angry.
If the prosecutor doesn't want to make her life a living nightmare, she can simply avoid doing something which a vast majority of the country views as an unconscionable assault on democracy and their ability to have a say in how their country is governed. It isn't particularly hard to avoid charging your political opponents with offences on shaky grounds while letting even worse behaviour from your own side go unchecked - I don't think there's a single poster on the motte who's managed to commit that particular blunder.
Just over half -- 52% -- think Trump should have been charged with a crime in this case, while 32% said he should not have been..
Also, see my response here.
Also, OP is talking about the general case here. If you want to write into the law a separate clause for 'political candidates currently running for office and also on trial cannot be issued gag orders', that's something we could discuss (I'm against), but it doesn't really answer the general question we're discussing here.
I don't think your response in that other post really says anything worthwhile with regards to this conversation. Whether January 6 was actually a serious, deadly insurrection or not is an extremely partisan issue and still a matter of active debate, so calling back to it isn't going to convince anyone who hasn't already accepted your premises. A plausible reading of the events of January 6 is that the federal government made the protests worse on purpose in order to have an excuse to crack down on right-wingers - in which case appealing to how terrible that event was is just an argument against your own position.
As regards to the general question, my position is that the prosecutions are largely spurious and politically motivated, due to far more egregious crimes being ignored or treated with absurd amounts of leniency (did you ever read Hunter Biden's proposed plea bargain? I mean holy shit), and we already have big norms and principles against partisan prosecution like this. The incredibly overbroad gag orders like this are just comically absurd on the face of it - I find it extremely hard to believe that you'd be ok with Texas launching investigations into Biden, Harris and any DNC spokespeople for corruptly profiting from the Ukraine war, arranging for important court dates to overlap with important campaign dates, and then issuing a gag order preventing them from speaking negatively about any potential witnesses that includes every single member of the Republican party. I'd support a more general principle that gag orders should not be applied to political candidates, but it beggars belief that you'd be ok with what's happening here if the political valence was flipped.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link