These sample phrases are automatically selected from various online information sources to reflect the current use of the word “gag order”. The views expressed in the examples do not represent the views of Merriam-Webster or its editors. Send us your feedback. In the United States, gag orders are included in all national security letters (a kind of FBI subpoena) to prevent recipients from saying they received them. The legal definition of “gag” according to the Merriam-Webster Legal Dictionary is “A court decision prohibiting the public disclosure or discussion (such as by the press) of information relating to a case.” The presumed intent is to prevent pre-trial publicity bias that would influence potential jurors. A minor purpose of a gag order is to prevent lawyers from hearing the case in the press and on television, thereby creating a public feeling (which could become ugly) in favor of one party or another. Based on the First Amendment`s “freedom of the press” provision, the court cannot constitutionally prevent the media from printing or disseminating information about the case, so the only option is to gag participants under court control. In Canada, however, the media can be restricted, as in a famous case in which American newspapers were smuggled across the border to report on a particularly horrific sexual murder case in which a second accused was still on trial. A gag order can also be issued by an executive authority, such as when President George Bush issued a gag order banning government-funded health clinics from disclosing information about abortions, a gag order that President Bill Clinton rescinded on his first day in office.
January 22, 1993. In Sheppard v. Maxwell (1966), the Supreme Court held that defendants have the right to impartial jury trials and that trial judges must take strict measures to uphold the right to a fair trial. The judges interpreted Sheppard as authorization to impose gag orders on trial participants, but some even began placing them in the media. The court dispelled the latter notion and set the bar high for such orders in Nebraska Press Association v. Stuart (1976). This case arose out of the 1975 trial of Erwin Simants, who was charged with the murder of six people. The district judge issued a gag order prohibiting the media from reporting Simants` confession, statements he had made to others, the contents of notes he wrote on the night of the killings, and other potentially damaging information. The Supreme Court declared the judge`s order invalid and ruled that media gag orders must be a heavy burden and that courts must rigorously prove their necessity. Instead of issuing gag orders, courts should consider alternatives, such as changing venues, postponing proceedings until public attention subsides, rigorous voir dire (or jury selection), and referral to the jury. A gag order is a provision whereby individuals so appointed do not disclose information they have learned in a particular situation such as a court, public office or business environment.
Gag orders are often issued as conditions for employment contracts, litigation and legal settlements. Gag orders are sometimes used to ensure a fair trial by preventing pre-trial publication, although their use for this purpose is controversial as it constitutes a potentially unconstitutional prior restriction that may lead the press to use less reliable sources such as unofficial statements and second- or third-hand reports. [3] Another type of gag order was used for some time by the courts to prevent the press from reporting certain facts about a trial. This muzzle was imposed after the 1966 Supreme Court decision in Sheppard v. Maxwell, 384 U.S. 333, 86 p. C. 1507, 16 L. Ed.
2d 600, in which it quashed a criminal conviction on the basis that pre-trial publicity unfairly placed the jury at a disadvantage over the accused and denied him his right to a fair trial under the Sixth Amendment. However, in a 1976 decision, Nebraska Press Ass`n v. Stuart, 427 U.S. 539, 96 S. Ct. 2791, 49 L. Ed. 2d 683, the court ruled that the pre-trial gag orders to the press were unconstitutional. It ruled that such orders constituted an unconstitutional prior restriction and violated the First Amendment, which guarantees freedom of the press. Under this new law, it has become criminal to print, publish, sell or exhibit materials aimed at paralyzing or destroying the government of the island; or to organize a society, group or gathering of persons with similar destructive intent.
