Freedom of speech - contentious thread

[Ttaskmaster]

Scholars can't agree if the Bible is credible.

But as a whole, the religion still tends to agree on certain things, which form the foundation of that religion.

As an outsider looking in, it is not up to me to say which parts are or are not valid, each group makes up their own interpretations, while I can only judge the whole.

Absolutely, and that's what I'm getting at.

It is not up to the law of the country to decide on morality

Actually it is - Law is basically derived from the commonly agreed morality, codified and written down for definitive clarity. It also allows for extenuating or variable circumstances, a degree of subjectivity and even revision based on changing society, within that structure.

We discussed Tommy Robinson earlier, and while I was delighted that no one made any attempt to defend his viewpoint, several did mention that he should be in prison because he broke the law.

Far as I understand it, he was jailed for his actions, not his speech.... actions which he admitted were knowingly in violation of orders specifically prohibiting him from doing this.

I disagree. When the law is wrong, someone should not be imprisoned for it, and that comes to what is, for me, the important issue of the thread. Freedom of speech should be protected from exactly this kind of state action.

Speech is free from persecution by the state... but not necessarily by the people. Also, inciting hatred and attempting to pervert, prejudice, influence or otherwise affect the course of justice is a crime, and Robinson has a history of stirring things up like this.

Freedom of speech is a moral issue, which is distinct from a legal one.

If that were the case, people would have no legal recourse to whine about their "right to Freedom Of Speech".

If you do have it in law of any kind (and you do), it also carries a level of responsibility in how you exercise that right - Namely that you don't use it to damage the rights or reputations of others, national security, public health, public morality or public order. Robinson did this on several counts.

It's not licence to say whatever you like and is only freedom of speech, not freedom from consequences.

[TeePee]

But he wasn't imprisoned for what he said explicitly - but for the context in which he said it, which lead him to being in contempt of court. Contempt of Court (and perjury) and serious crimes because they threaten the credibility of the judicial system.

It is that context which I have a problem with. I think it is an unreasonable restriction on free speech for the government to ban commentary on a current event. It does appear that he violated a Court Order, but it is the existence of that court order which I have a problem with. There is no ability in the US for Courts to ban reporting about the existence of a trial taking place, and the judicial system continues.

[TeePee]

Speech is free from persecution by the state... but not necessarily by the people. Also, inciting hatred and attempting to pervert, prejudice, influence or otherwise affect the course of justice is a crime, and Robinson has a history of stirring things up like this.

This is the exact point I'm making. Laws restricting these actions are fine, but banning all speech on a particular event is not.

[Ttaskmaster]

I think it is an unreasonable restriction on free speech for the government to ban commentary on a current event.

"This is not about free speech, not about the freedom of the press, nor about legitimate journalism, and not about political correctness. It is about justice and ensuring that a trial can be carried out justly and fairly, it's about being innocent until proven guilty. It is about preserving the integrity of the jury to continue without people being intimidated or being affected by irresponsible and inaccurate 'reporting', if that's what it was"
Judge Heather Norton.

The government bans it because people are idiots and will believe people like Robinson, even if a trial proves beyond any possible doubt that someone is innocent. This is why teachers wholly cleared of raping students still lose their jobs and never work in that field again.
Public opinion and trial by Twitter trumps everything these days.

[TeePee]

"This is not about free speech, not about the freedom of the press, nor about legitimate journalism, and not about political correctness. It is about justice and ensuring that a trial can be carried out justly and fairly, it's about being innocent until proven guilty. It is about preserving the integrity of the jury to continue without people being intimidated or being affected by irresponsible and inaccurate 'reporting', if that's what it was"
Judge Heather Norton.

The government bans it because people are idiots and will believe people like Robinson, even if a trial proves beyond any possible doubt that someone is innocent. This is why teachers wholly cleared of raping students still lose their jobs and never work in that field again.
Public opinion and trial by Twitter trumps everything these days.

I disagree with the Judge, but agree that people are idiots. A trial can be newsworthy, and reported on without any prejudice to the jury. Look at the high profile trials in the US, like Casey Antony or George Zimmerman, in which the Jury's returned verdicts that were entirely contrary to the bias of the reporting.

[peterb]

It is that context which I have a problem with. I think it is an unreasonable restriction on free speech for the government to ban commentary on a current event. It does appear that he violated a Court Order, but it is the existence of that court order which I have a problem with. There is no ability in the US for Courts to ban reporting about the existence of a trial taking place, and the judicial system continues.

And there isn’t in this country - by accredited members of the press - but Robinson isn’t a journalist.

[TeePee]

And there isn’t in this country - by accredited members of the press - but Robinson isn’t a journalist.

I'll agree he isn't a journalist, but nor are most of CNN/Fox News. Freedom of speech isn't limited to the press.

[peterb]

I'll agree he isn't a journalist, but nor are most of CNN/Fox News. Freedom of speech isn't limited to the press.

No, it isn't but the press are subject to contempt of court rules - so they take their role seriously to avoid being in contempt - Robinson did not and put himself in jeopardy.

And you are right, anyone can report court proceedings - but only after evidence has been tried and tested in the court. I'm not a journalist (and don't report on court proceedings) but the rules about contempt are well established.

[Saracen]

I'll agree he isn't a journalist, but nor are most of CNN/Fox News. Freedom of speech isn't limited to the press.

It's not about journalistic accrefiration ... which in itself would be tricky, because, eell, who decides who is accredited, and on what basis? In the UK, "accredited" usually means belonging to a relevant trade body/union, which in turn means you paid your fees, and the relevant proportion of your income is derived from journalism. Your income can be 100% from journalism, and you can be a famous name, but if you don't join the union and pay up, no "press" card. That card will often gain you access to otherwise restricted or closed events, but take it from me, that isn't the only way to do it (usually).

Contempt law applies to "publications" of "active" judicial proceedings where there is a serious risk of impeding or prejudising those proceedings.

The thing is, "publication" refers to the act of publishing, not a publication like a newspaper or magazine, If a person takes a piece of information and, in written, speech or media form, addresses it to the public, part of the public or any member of the public, you''ve published it.

The "publication" can be written, speech, etc or, and I quote, "any other communication of whatever form"-

So, newpaper articles and TV reports for sure, but also YouTube videos, Tweets, posters nailed to a tree, a letter to even a single member of the public or, and remember this one, forum posts are all vehicles for possible contempt. And, by anybody, not just "journalists".

It is also a strict liability offence, meaning that the act of publishing is sufficient, not your intent in doing so.


But bear this in mind. It's not "reporting" of court proceedings, provided they are fair and accurate, that gives rise to contempt unless the judge has imposed specific restrictions and that latter does generally refer to media and press operations which have been specifically notified of those restrictions, and you then break the order.

So, press and media are, in the absence if specific restrictions, free to fsirly and accurately report on what happened in court proceedings. They are not free go start digging and publicising all sorts of other information about the subjects of proceedings, if it might seriously prejudice those proceedings.

The thing is, professional journalists shoukd understand the law, will generally have work checked by sub-editors that understand it, and where necessary, have access to media lawyers that can clarify questionable areas,

An example: generally, jurors are explicitly precluded from knowing anything about the accused's criminsl record. Only at the decision of the judge, and for specific reasons, will they be told. As it happens, I was a jury member when it was disclosed, at the direction of the judge, that the accused had a huge string of convictions for exactly what he was accused of. Knowing that will, in all likelihood, affect the jury's assessment of that witnesses (accused's) credibility.

What is NOT acceptable, is for some "journalist" to go digging, and publish that criminal record.

But remember, there has to be a significant risk of impeding or prejuding the trial. If I, as a member of the public, write a letter to Aunt Ethel publishing that Fred Bloggs is on trial for burglary yet again, it's highly unlikely to affect the trial.

But if I go on Newsnight and "publish" exactly the same potentially damaging info about his record, and a membet or members of the jury see it .... odds are the trial collapses.

I can, however, quite happily go on Newsnight and describe, fairly and accurately, who gave what evidence in court that day, because even if jurors are watching, they already know what I'm telling them, as they were there (and presumably awake) at the time.

If go go too far, or off-piste, in what I say, I can expect an unpleasant session in from of His/Her Honour, where I get a thorough reaming.

This is why you'll often hear TV reporters, presenters, etc, being VERY careful and limited in what they say about "active" court cases.

[Ttaskmaster]

A trial can be newsworthy, and reported on without any prejudice to the jury.

Jurors often spend a lot of time (potentially days) waiting around in the juror's room between court sessions. Rather than have nothing to do, they are provided with things like TV, newspapers and internet.

But while yes it can be thus reported, it often is not. A great number of people will still tell you that Michael Jackson was a paedophile, for example.
The problem is when known cack-stirrers like this guy come along doing exactly what he did and swaying public opinion.

[peterb]

Jurors often spend a lot of time (potentially days) waiting around in the juror's room between court sessions. Rather than have nothing to do, they are provided with things like TV, newspapers and internet.

But while yes it can be thus reported, it often is not. A great number of people will still tell you that Michael Jackson was a paedophile, for example.
The problem is when known cack-stirrers like this guy come along doing exactly what he did and swaying public opinion.

Admin note: Edited to use correct terminology

[TeePee]

I'm aware on the reasons why the ban was placed, but I disagree with it. In this case, it was a ban on all reporting of the current event, not just any backstory, and that' goes significantly too far. With Michael Jackson, and the other examples used, the Jury was not influenced, despite significant media reporting and bias, including previous accusations.

[Saracen]

I'm aware on the reasons why the ban was placed, but I disagree with it. In this case, it was a ban on all reporting of the current event, not just any backstory, and that' goes significantly too far. With Michael Jackson, and the other examples used, the Jury was not influenced, despite significant media reporting and bias, including previous accusations.

I completrey disagree that the ban went too far. There was a 100% legally valid, and justified, reason for it.

And it was this. There were three separate, but linked, trials. Reporting on anty one could threaten the fairness of either or both of the other two, since some of the circumstances witnesses and evidence were in common. It is not acceptable for jurors in one to be getting information about their trial from reporting on the others, not least because evidence that is admissible in one trial may not be ib the others.

The generic contempt rulings do not prevent fair and accurate reporting, so even 'proper' reporting that would not, in the absence of tje other trials, be a problem threatens the other two because they are linked.

Therefore, the judge was justified in imposing the ban. It's a shame it was ineffective, not least because of political activism of the type espoused by Robinson, and the inaccurate reporting of foreign media who, of course, cannot be held to acvount by UK judges.

Besides, even if it had gone too far, it is not for amy individual , journaljst or not, to unilaterally overrule the judge, and if you do, you deserve the consequences.

If you don't agree with the ban, the correct approach is to appeal tne ban, not ignore it. Which is precisely what other journslists did, and successfully.

Besides, given Robinson's previous activities, it does cross my mind that breaching the court order and getting done for contempt might hsve been an entirely deliberate publicity-seeking ploy. If so, it worked extremely well, didn't it?

[TeePee]

So the ban was appealed, successfully, by other (real) journalists? Do you agree or disagree with that appeal?

What happened with the other two trials? Were they then thrown out because they couldn't have been fair? No?

[Saracen]

So the ban was appealed, successfully, by other (real) journalists? Do you agree or disagree with that appeal?

What happened with the other two trials? Were they then thrown out because they couldn't have been fair? No?

The first conviction stands. The sentence was suspended, subject to no subsequent offences and, like any suspended sentence if you re-offend within the specified period, the suspended sentence becomes active.

The second conviction was overturned on appeal BUT, is to be retried. The reason for the appeal success is not, as I understand it, but a procedural matter.

The way such contempt proceedings are usually handled is tvat the trial judge only deals with it if it is urgent. The basis for the appeal was that as the offending videos were removed, there was no need to deal with it so quickly and that time should have been allowed to consider positions, and the case should have been handed of to the department that deals with it.

As for commenting further on that, well, in view of the fact that it is an on-going "active" case, soon to be retried, I have no intention of going further than, as fairly and accurately as I can, reporting events that have occurred. I have no wish to find myself sharing a cell with Mr Robinson.

Was the appeal by other journalusts right? Well, ascthe original judge agreed, who am I to disagree? But that does NOT mean that either I or the judge consider the original broad ban to be wrong. It was, IMHO, quite correct. However, due to the misinformation being spread about, not least by foreign press, the situation had moved on and, given the new situation, lifting it was the best of a poor set of options.

Bear in mind that, fron a feeedom of speech perspective, the ban did not prevent journalists writing about, reporting on or commentingvon the case. It just prevented them doing it while the cases were active.

Those other journalists did it the right way. The challenged the ban, but dudb't just ignore and breach it.

So yes, it was right to impose it, andxright to lift it when it became clear it was not only not working, but may actually be counter-productive.

The thing is, both freedom of speech and the effective administration of justice are critically importsnt, but sometimes they conflict. When that happens, all that can be done is to strike a balance, and it seems to me that delaying that free speech just long enough to not compromise getting a fair trial is the correct compromise

After all, if the trial is compromised, we risk either innocent people going to jail, or guilty ones unneccesarily going free and justice being denied to their victims.

Free speech is important, but it's not the only thing that is .... not even in the kand of the free. There are still limits, and crossing, for example, a federal judge in the execution ofcthrir duties and power is not a smart move.

[Ttaskmaster]

Admin note: Edited to use correct terminology

Took me a while to remember what term I actually used. I was aiming for something less impactful.
Why the Danish spelling, though?

Michael Jackson, and the other examples used, the Jury was not influenced, despite significant media reporting and bias, including previous accusations.

I still see no reason to give someone like this bloke a stage from which to preach hatred like that. People get stirred up enough as it is, without allowing his kind free reign to say what they like.

So the ban was appealed, successfully, by other (real) journalists? Do you agree or disagree with that appeal?

Disagree.
I think all trials should be completely banned from reporting, until after all proceedings are concluded, no matter how high-profile they are.
Currently with some of them, all you get from the media is something like, "Two men have been charged with the crime". No names, no details, just in case they're proven innocent.