By Anonymous - 17/03/2016 15:34 - United States - Pomona
Same thing different taste
By Anonymous - 04/12/2013 21:15 - Sweden - Uppsala
Contempt
By Anonymous - 04/03/2016 21:59 - United States - Richmond
By A Henderson - 25/04/2012 20:50 - United States
By harrington61 - 19/05/2013 21:27 - United States - Midland
By zl5 - 04/07/2014 23:17 - New Zealand - Masterton
Crimefighters
By Anonymous - 03/07/2009 19:56 - Canada
By Anonymous - 23/05/2013 01:57 - Canada - Toronto
By mustanggt - 10/07/2012 15:39 - United States - La Porte
Cars can **** right off
By Anonymous - 31/07/2022 18:00
By apav - 11/06/2009 11:52 - Australia
Top comments
Comments
At the risk of being down voted, it IS actually your constitutional right to speak as much as you want in a court room and it could be considered a federal offense if a judge does find you in contempt. P.S the only reason I know is because my father is a constitutional lawyer.
Actually no. When a judge orders silence and you keep talking against his direct order you can be found in contempt. You also can be if you make a scene such as cussing a judge. There are weird rules in court but so it won't be chaos.
Freedom of speech also doesn't mean you are acquitted from consequence.
My dad was a software engineer, therefore I can write my own programs. My friend could take out your appendix, her dad's a doctor. Oh wait, no. See the problem with your qualifications? Freedom of speech means that the government cannot punish you for saying things against it that are unfavorable. It's freedom to criticize the institution of government itself. Freedom to publish ideas. Freedom to think in ways that could lead to revolution. People who get their idea of the law from the internet think that freedom of speech means freedom to speak whatever, whenever. It's so, so not. You cannot spread harmful lies. You cannot endanger the life or property of others. You cannot break rules of conduct that are legally set out, such as being quiet in court or even movie theatres, as those rules have been examined and found to be perfectly constitutional, as silence in some situations is necessary for some places to function. Saying "but I have freedom of speech" means you can keep talking out of turn in court is like saying "freedom to assemble" means you can have a rally on your neighbors lawn. Rights and regulations are afforded to other people and your wish to do what you want does not trump that just because it is speech. In short, the fact that "contempt of court" exists should have been enough to tell you that your idea of freedom of speech is off-base
if he was smart, he wouldn't need representation in the first place
Not necessarily true, though it is most of the time. I know someone who had to get a lawyer because she was brought up on truancy charges... when she had already graduated high school.
People need to realize that just because we have freedom of speech doesn't mean that there aren't consequences of your words.
As a public defender who did you think you would be representing, the cream of society?
Legal services are expensive, and the minimum wage (in the USA, I don't know what it's like elsewhere) is ridiculously low. What good is being entitled to due process of law if you can't get a proper defense?
To take the old adage and turn it around, you do it because public defenders are the 1% of lawyers that keep the other 99% from giving the profession a bad name.
then go work for a law firm.
Matt Murdock pls
He had the right to remain silent, but not the ability.
To everybody saying he didn't do anything wrong in using his "freedom of speech" you are wrong. You see, when in certain places, certain rights are taken away. Such as in school and the court room, your freedom of speech is taken away. And in this instance, it seems that the judge did not give the client the permission to speak.
You guys live a hard life, too, I feel for you.
Keywords
It's never too late to switch careers...
He needs to learn when to use his "freedom of speech"