# gag orders vs. free speech **URL:** \ **Category:** Factual Questions\ **Created:** [July 16, 2013, 9:12pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/gag-orders-vs-free-speech/663701 "2013-07-16T21:12:11Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 8\ **Page:** 1
**Author:** ![dstarfire](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/dstarfire/32/5762_2.png) [@dstarfire](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/dstarfire)\ **Post date:** [July 16, 2013, 9:12pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/gag-orders-vs-free-speech/663701/1 "2013-07-16T21:12:11Z")
What law or ruling allows government agencies to prevent a private company from talking about search warrants and subpoenas they’ve received? A bit of googling showed a ruling that gives judges the authority to order members of the court from discussing a trial until after it’s been concluded, but I couldn’t find anything granting that authority to investigators or surveillance agencies, or that allowed it to be used against any citizen or company. **Please limit your posts to facts only**. I don’t want to get bogged down with debating the legality of controversial surveillance programs, unless it’s of the “ruling xyz invalidated the abc ruling (a previous commenter) cites” sort. ---
**Author:** ![Keeve](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/k/f07891/32.png) [@Keeve](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Keeve)\ **Post date:** [July 16, 2013, 9:20pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/gag-orders-vs-free-speech/663701/2 "2013-07-16T21:20:37Z")
> [@dstarfire](#): > > What law or ruling allows government agencies to prevent a private company from talking about search warrants and subpoenas they’ve received? The warrants and subpoenas are issued by courts, aren’t they? So if anyone violates the instructions which accompany them, it would constitute contempt of court. Maybe I misunderstood the question. ---
**Author:** ![Kent\_Clark](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/kent_clark/32/105_2.png) [@Kent\_Clark](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Kent_Clark)\ **Post date:** [July 16, 2013, 9:30pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/gag-orders-vs-free-speech/663701/3 "2013-07-16T21:30:39Z")
When I googled “search warrant” and “gag order” the [very first listing](http://www.hamptonfallslibrary.org/policies/privacy-subpoenas-and-search-warrants/)that came up said: > [@](#): > > Some search warrants or subpoenas issued under the USA Patriot Act come with a “gag order” automatically attached, preventing staff from telling the patron or the public that the information has been provided to the FBI. (Emphasis added) ---
**Author:** ![ZenBeam](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/z/3ab097/32.png) [@ZenBeam](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/ZenBeam)\ **Post date:** [July 16, 2013, 9:37pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/gag-orders-vs-free-speech/663701/4 "2013-07-16T21:37:48Z")
> [@Keeve](#): > > The warrants and subpoenas are issued by courts, aren’t they? So if anyone violates the instructions which accompany them, it would constitute contempt of court. > > Maybe I misunderstood the question. I would guess the issue is how that is reconciled with the limitations on [Prior Restraint](http://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/Prior+Restraint). ---
**Author:** ![dstarfire](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/dstarfire/32/5762_2.png) [@dstarfire](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/dstarfire)\ **Post date:** [July 16, 2013, 9:52pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/gag-orders-vs-free-speech/663701/5 "2013-07-16T21:52:23Z")
Thanks for the tip Zenbeam, that certainly provided some insight, and a possible answer I’m hoping is wrong (national security interest). My confusion/discomfort comes from the fact that companies are presented with information (without their consent) that they haven’t requested or made any effort to obtain themselves, and then prohibited from revealing that information. It seems there _should_ be some sort of opt-out mechanism (e.g. display, or reply to the first information request received with, a notice saying “we’ll publish any information requests we receive”). ---
**Author:** ![TriPolar](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/tripolar/32/3008_2.png) [@TriPolar](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/TriPolar)\ **Post date:** [July 16, 2013, 10:04pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/gag-orders-vs-free-speech/663701/6 "2013-07-16T22:04:03Z")
I don’t see how prior restraint applies here, except for the ‘wartime’ exception which has not stood up in the courts so far as I can tell. I would think this could be done with limitations on time and place, to hold citizens to secrecy for a specific purpose with a definititive time schedule. If there’s something like that in the Patriot Act it might make a difference. ---
**Author:** ![dstarfire](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/dstarfire/32/5762_2.png) [@dstarfire](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/dstarfire)\ **Post date:** [July 28, 2013, 6:47pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/gag-orders-vs-free-speech/663701/7 "2013-07-28T18:47:47Z")
The part of this practice I’m having trouble with is the combination of forcing information upon a person/corporation and then preventing that person from talking about it. In essence, the person is forced into becoming a bearer of classified information (and carrying all the burdens that accompany that). Which brings to mind another question: has any court recognized (the bearing of classified information) as a burden? ---
**Author:** ![md2000](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/73ab20/32.png) [@md2000](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/md2000)\ **Post date:** [July 28, 2013, 7:21pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/gag-orders-vs-free-speech/663701/8 "2013-07-28T19:21:41Z")
The law has always allowed, (AFAIK, IANAL) that disclosing information that hinders an investigation (i.e. warning someone the police are planning to raid their speakeasy or that there is an informer in the organization) is an offense. This is just a logical extension of that - the assumption that should the alleged perps, the targets of the investigation, get the least whiff of the investigation, or what information the authorities are collecting, then that could let them take steps to foil the investigation. The legal gag order simply puts the recipient on notice that this is what sort of leak would be considered by the authorities to be obstructing their investigation. You’re welcome to challenge or defy it keeping in mind the penalties attached if you lose the battle. The order itself is legal because the law and the secret court have said it is, and nobody has successfully appealed and won AFAIK. So it’s not a question of whether it’s right, it’s a question of degree. Most such bans expire when the investigation is over or the trial is over, but the nice thing about a decades-long 'war on terror" is that it’s never over so the bans can’t expire. Canada has a number of valid reasons for banning publication > **[Karla Homolka | Publication ban](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Karla_Homolka#Publication_ban)** > > Citing the need to protect Bernardo's right to a fair trial, a publication ban was imposed on Homolka's preliminary inquiry. > The Crown had applied for the ban imposed on July 5, 1993, by Francis Kovacs, a Justice of the Ontario Court (General Division). Homolka, through her lawyers, supported the ban, whereas Bernardo's lawyers argued that he would be prejudiced by the ban since Homolka previously had been portrayed as his victim. Four media outlets and one author also opposed the application. ... Under the guise of “the other defendant needs a fair trial” the prosecutors hid the fact that they’d been totally snowed by their “star witness”. Many such bans have benefited Canadian criminals- a pig farmer who fed his 50-plus victims to his pigs, a woman who kidnapped and either hammered 9yo Tori Stafford to death or watched her boyfriend do it, etc. There have also been bans on things like media identifying victims of sex crimes, a convenience many perps who are related to the victims truly appreciate.