Freedom of speech - contentious thread

[peterb]

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

Corrected to the preferred UK english spelling.

[Ttaskmaster]

Corrected to the preferred UK english spelling.

Mange tak, skåll.

[TeePee]

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.

I offer nothing in support of this individuals viewpoint. He's scum.

However, the point of freedom of speech is that it is the unpopular speech that requires the most protection.

[Saracen]

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


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.


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.

I agree with the sentiment there, but the appeal against the broad restrictions weren't lifted because it was high profile. It was because, as I understand it, :-

a) the cat was already out of the bag, the milk spilt and the genie wrll and truly ex-bottled.

b) given that a) was a fact, the situation leading to the ban had changed, the reason destroyed and the continuation probably counterproductive.

Fact is, because Robinson was fairly high profile, and has friends abroad, the case was picked up by foreign press, publishing abroad but, in this internet age,
available here, and the mistakes and misinformation were probably more dsmaging than generally accurate UK-based court reporting.

Had the original broad ban held there would have been no foreign press because the existance of triple-track trials would not have been public, at least until they were done. Hence the original bsn was justified.

After the fiasco and publicity, which should never have happened, lifting the ban was by that point in time, correct as it did more harm than good.

Were I an Old Bailey judge retrying Robinson, I'd be very interested in the chain of cause and effect resulting in that foreign coverage, in considering the impact of any contempt.

[Saracen]

I offer nothing in support of this individuals viewpoint. He's scum.6

However, the point of freedom of speech is that it is the unpopular speech that requires the most protection.

I entirely agree, both on the value judgement and the importance of free speech.

He's entitled to have his say .... within the law .... as are we all.

But not about a trial, during that trial, thereby risking that trial.

If he'd done his thing after the trial was no longer active, he'd never gave been convicted.

It's not what he said. It's about when he chose to say it.

Free speech exists in balance with other things, one of them being the right to ar trial and the proper administration of justice.

[TeePee]

I understand the reasons why, but I'm still opposed to the entire concept of secret trials.

Again, free and open reporting appears to do no damage to justice in the US, even in States where trials are broadcast live.

[peterb]

I understand the reasons why, but I'm still opposed to the entire concept of secret trials.

Again, free and open reporting appears to do no damage to justice in the US, even in States where trials are broadcast live.

The trial weren't secret - they are open to the public and tried by a random selection of jurors. And the US hardly has an impeccable record with extraordinary rendition and trial without representation.

[TeePee]

And the US hardly has an impeccable record with extraordinary rendition and trial without representation.

There's also a death penalty, civil forfeiture and private prisons. I make no claim that it's a just society. But they manage to have reporting on trials without affecting the outcome.

[peterb]

There's also a death penalty, civil forfeiture and private prisons. I make no claim that it's a just society. But they manage to have reporting on trials without affecting the outcome.

How can you be sure?

[TeePee]

How can you be sure?

Because the verdicts in the cases mentioned were opposed to the biased reporting.

[peterb]

The trials in the UK were reported on - but what I meant was how can you be sure that the open reporting of trial in the US does not prejudice the outcome?

[peterb]

More to the point - how does the US reporting improve the judicial system for both the victims of crime and the alleged perpetrator?

[TeePee]

The trials in the UK were reported on - but what I meant was how can you be sure that the open reporting of trial in the US does not prejudice the outcome?

Because every indication is that Jurys base their verdict on the evidence presented.

[TeePee]

More to the point - how does the US reporting improve the judicial system for both the victims of crime and the alleged perpetrator?

I am not aware that it does. What it does achieve is to not ban reporting of events that are believed to be newsworthy. Again, to restrict something requires a very good reason for government to act to do so. Banning reporting of trials for the sake of Justice is a reason, but the evidence I've seen comparing those countries that do and do not ban such reporting leads me to believe that the reasoning is not sufficient.

[peterb]

I am not aware that it does. What it does achieve is to not ban reporting of events that are believed to be newsworthy. Again, to restrict something requires a very good reason for government to act to do so. Banning reporting of trials for the sake of Justice is a reason, but the evidence I've seen comparing those countries that do and do not ban such reporting leads me to believe that the reasoning is not sufficient.

The judicial system in the UK is largely independent of Government - it is one of the components of a democratic society, so while the Government proposes legislation, Parliament enacts it and the judiciary apply it.

And just because something is newsworthy does not mean that it should be reported in real time - there is a risk of conflating that which is "in the public interest" with that "which is of interest to the public". The two are not the same.

[TeePee]

The judicial system in the UK is largely independent of Government - it is one of the components of a democratic society, so while the Government proposes legislation, Parliament enacts it and the judiciary apply it.

And just because something is newsworthy does not mean that it should be reported in real time - there is a risk of conflating that which is "in the public interest" with that "which is of interest to the public". The two are not the same.

The Judiciary is a branch of Government.

Again, everything is permissible, except that which is restricted. Government doesn't allow things, they ban things. For something to be banned, it needs to be in the public interest to do so. It doesn't matter if those things are of interest to the public or not. It doesn't matter if a trial is, or isn't newsworthy, or who's decision that is. A compelling case needs to be made for government to be able to restrict freedom of speech, and based on the evidence of other countries without such restrictions, that ban is not supported.