Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments

ShadowOrson t1_jckh7gi wrote

It is interesting that this court has decided it is a right to be rude, this court will now accept contempt of court, won't they?

−17

hawklost t1_jckjhw5 wrote

Maybe read the article? Even just the first paragraph would show your comment has no value considering what it says.

Here, I'll help.

"In a decision that jangled the nerves of some elected officials, the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court last week reaffirmed a basic liberty established by the founding fathers: the right to be rude at public meetings."

Note that 3 extra words at the end of the paragraph change the context from "being rude anywhere and everywhere" to just during public meetings.

Now, you Miiiight try to argue court is a public meeting, but it isn't. Many states require the courts to be Public, but they aren't considered Meetings and so they are not Public Meetings.

8

gortlank t1_jcknv3f wrote

I mean, if you want to entirely miss the point of the previous comment in favor of pedantry, feel free, but the same principle that first amendment rights are sacrosanct, even if rude or offensive, should obviously apply to courts as well.

Judges routinely use contempt of court as bludgeon to coerce decorum, because offending their delicate sensibilities, or gods forfend, impugning their character, is such a slight on their dignity that the hammer of the state must be used to prevent it.

Judges are babies, which is why they’d never allow this in court. Any legal argument as to why that’s acceptable is just post facto justification as to why their paper thin feelings are more important than rights.

−13

neotericnewt t1_jckpt7e wrote

Contempt of court isn't really about rudeness as much as allowing the court process to continue. If you're having outbursts in court and you're not listening when the judge says to move on its interfering with the court process. Contempt of court is when you disobey orders from the court or otherwise interfere or obstruct the court process.

5

gortlank t1_jckrq8n wrote

That’s ostensibly what it’s for, but judges routinely use it as a cudgel for what they deem offensive or inappropriate speech, especially when directed at them, even if only done in moments where those in court are allowed to speak.

They have the latitude to use it in practically any manner they want, and they routinely use it specifically to coerce decorum.

−8

hawklost t1_jckp8ge wrote

A court of law is not a public discourse not a place to air your grievances. It is there to decide if someone did something to break the law or to at least decide responses Based on the law.

Calling a judge Hitler because they interpreted the law against you or someone you IS contempt.

It disrupts and slows proceedings. Potentially tampering with jury views in a way that isn't legal and frankly is just a baby throwing a tantrum because they aren't getting their way. So yes, a judge can say the person is in contempt and remove them. But unlike public meetings, there are ways to redress the judges decision and make a trial a mistrial if they push too far.

4

gortlank t1_jckrzwd wrote

Naw, if offensive or rude speech is protected, if the defendant has been asked what they plead, for example, and they say “not guilty, mister Hitler”, that should be fully protected.

I never said anything about speaking out of turn or disrupting proceedings with outbursts.

Judges, and you’d know this if you’d been an officer of the courts or spent any amount of time in court rooms, regularly use contempt as punishment for when someone is rude to them, even if it’s within their allowed moment of response during the process.

Edit: ahh, downvoted for saying something you dislike, eh? I imagine you’d love to have me thrown in jail for that, censorious individual that you are.

Luckily I acknowledge your right to downvote as speech. A favor I’m sure you wouldn’t return.

−13