denying freedom of speech, or fair play?

[thir]

A teacher was murdered, and a person stands trial for this murder.

In English law you cannot write about this in detail :

"The prosecuting barrister, Paul Greaney QC, asked the judge to warn members of the public as well as the media that the boy had a right to a fair trial.

Addressing the court, Greaney said: "This case has understandably generated public concern and public interest in equal measure. The print and broadcast media have reported the case very extensively and prominently and there has been much comment about it online in social media."

He said that as proceedings were active, "any publication which creates a substantial risk that the course of justice in the proceedings will be seriously impeded or prejudiced will be a contempt of court. It should be understood that this applies not only to publications by news organisations but also by users of online social media and bloggers.

"Obvious examples of publications that may create a relevant risk are those dealing with the defendant's history and background, whether medical or otherwise and his relationship with Mrs Maguire or other teachers at the school, or with his parents or other young persons." "

http://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2...s-murder-trial


I am interested in all aspects of freedom of speech, and this seems to be one of the moot points.

Is this denying free speech, or simply fair play?

Are these laws the same in other countries?

[leo9]

Just about every state reckons that there are places where free speech must be limited. Hate speech is one example, and another is where it may threaten a fair trial.

There are awful examples from the past where newpapers have proclaimed a person's guilt from the moment they were arrested or even before. (The classic case is a French paper which in all its reports of a trial refered to the accused as "the Monstrous Assassin" - ending with the headline "MONSTROUS ASSASSIN AQUITTED.")

And note that this is not saying you can never publish anything on the topics the judge has listed: just that you can't publish them now, while the trial is in progress and they might influence witnesses. There have been many examples where a lot of stuff has come out after a trial was over.

[js207]

The judge's demands go much too far, IMO - and other countries take a different approach.

The justification for the restriction is that revealing details might influence the jury inappropriately. At most, that should be valid up until the moment at which the jury is empanelled and either sequestered, or warned to avoid looking at any reporting of the case; to gag the entire population just to prevent a dozen individuals overhearing something inappropriate is one of the most ludicrously disproportionate measures imaginable!

It's also increasingly futile, of course: the judge's authority is limited to England, so the rest of us are free to discuss the case regardless. Sooner or later, they will have to rethink this brute force approach.

[thir]

The judge's demands go much too far, IMO - and other countries take a different approach.

The justification for the restriction is that revealing details might influence the jury inappropriately. At most, that should be valid up until the moment at which the jury is empanelled and either sequestered, or warned to avoid looking at any reporting of the case; to gag the entire population just to prevent a dozen individuals overhearing something inappropriate is one of the most ludicrously disproportionate measures imaginable!

It's also increasingly futile, of course: the judge's authority is limited to England, so the rest of us are free to discuss the case regardless. Sooner or later, they will have to rethink this brute force approach.

I have come to the conclusion that it is in fact reasonably and necessary to keep trials fair, and that the public has no 'need' to know details that may influence the trial.

The difficult discussion about free speech has many facets, but in this case, as in threats and posting pics without peoples permission I think we have to curb it.