Freedom of speech - contentious thread

[TeePee]

There is nothing to suggest that allowing freedom of the press interferes with the application of the Law.

[Ttaskmaster]

There is nothing to suggest that allowing freedom of the press interferes with the application of the Law.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/8519995.stm
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/ukn...rder-case.html
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-13905765
https://www.holdthefrontpage.co.uk/2...s-on-facebook/
https://www.theguardian.com/media/20...tempt-of-court
https://www.independent.co.uk/life-s...e-1577021.html

But whatever - Have at it. Let everyone say what they like and have at it.
Let every Joe Idiot who has a voice and an outlet say whatever the heck they want about anything and everything.
Already we are swamped with fake news and non-news stories on social media, and no-one cares about the credibility of official press sources like newspapers. Even if they bother to publish apologies and corrections, no-one heeds them - Celebrities sue newspapers for millions in compensation over some pretty serious allegations, but no-one cares... the damage is done and now everyone will forever associate them with what they were accused of. Now you want to give them complete freedom because you say there's nothing to suggest any interference - Great, then have at it. I'm a big fan of giving everyone exactly what they ask for and letting them live with the results.

I'll link you to this thread next time a killer walks free as a result of a collapsed trial....

“Stupid people – who constitute the overwhelming majority of this and all other nations – believe and are convinced by what they get out of a newspaper, and there is where the harm lies”.
Mark Twain.

[TeePee]

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/8519995.stm

'What the research doesn't say is which types of reports the jurors remembered - and whether these memories influenced their verdict.'
'Again, we don't know whether this searching influenced their deliberations....'

I'm aware that UK law prevents reporting. We've discussed that repeatedly. I don't agree with the law, and have not sen any evidence to support that it is necessary to support just verdicts. Indeed, all the evidence from the US, where such reporting is not restricted, seems to indicate that Juries will come to a verdict without regard for media bias. Link me to this thread the first time a killer walks free because a jury is prejudiced by the media.

I'll link you back here the next time you out-fascist the fascists...

[Saracen]

....

More about the right of The Law to be applied without prejudice or influence. The accused generally has their rights severely restricted whilst under accusation.

Pretty much nothing is allowed to interfere, in theory at least, with the accused's right to a fair trial. It's about as fundamental as rights get, and quite rightly limits the power of the state which, with all the resources of the investigative (police) and prosecutorial (CPS) arms, is firmly in the state's favour.

Some of the accused's rights certainly are restricted, most notably that of freedom, which once charged will either removed removed or restricted by bail. But the right to a fair trial remains unfettered.

[Saracen]

There is nothing to suggest that allowing freedom of the press interferes with the application of the Law.

On the contrary. One role of the judge, whether UK or US, is to determine wgat evidence the jury is allowed to know about and if, for one of numerous reasons, the judge rules certaun evidence inadmissible, it defeats the whole point of that ruling if the press promptly report it and the jury become aware of that.

Don't forget, the press (here) are free to report what goes on in a trial (well, with some exceptions) .... just not while the case is active

One of those exceptions, and a really good way for a journalist to annoy a judge, is to report what happened inside the jury room. That is off-limits, pretty much permanently ... and for good reason.

[TeePee]

On the contrary. One role of the judge, whether UK or US, is to determine wgat evidence the jury is allowed to know about and if, for one of numerous reasons, the judge rules certaun evidence inadmissible, it defeats the whole point of that ruling if the press promptly report it and the jury become aware of that.

Don't forget, the press (here) are free to report what goes on in a trial (well, with some exceptions) .... just not while the case is active

One of those exceptions, and a really good way for a journalist to annoy a judge, is to report what happened inside the jury room. That is off-limits, pretty much permanently ... and for good reason.

And yet, when the press is free to report, even live video from the court room, and has significant bias against the defendant, the Jury still seems to find a just verdict.

[Ttaskmaster]

I don't agree with the law, and have not sen any evidence to support that it is necessary to support just verdicts.

Ours is the greatest newspaper reading population in the world; there is not a man among us fit to serve as a juror, who does not read the newspapers. Every great and startling crime is paraded in their columns, with all the minuteness of detail that an eager competitor for public favor can supply. Hence, the usual question, which has now become almost a necessary form in empaneling a jury, "have you formed or expressed an opinion?" is virtually equivalent to the inquiry, "do you read the newspapers?".... In the case of a particularly audacious crime that has been widely discussed it is utterly impossible that any man of common intelligence, and not wholly secluded from society, should be found, who had not formed an opinion
New York legal writer, 1846

Numerous people have been falsely convicted and some later released on the appeal basis of media prejudice... and you honestly think that doesn't happen the other way around?

Even as long ago as the 1930s, the American Bar association was trying to curb the press frenzy. The Lindberg baby murder was one example. Sam Sheppard murder was another.

In 1966 the Supreme Court ruled that the right to a public trial is not absolute. In cases where excess publicity would serve to undermine the defendant's right to due process, limitations can be put on public access to the proceedings.... why then would they do such a thing if juries are that good at finding the 'correct' verdict?
With the implementation of even wider media coverage and even heavier influence, what has changed in modern times that mean jury people are somehow magically far less subject to media influence... and if you do assert such immunity of the people, how do you explain the blatant media influence in things like Brexit voting?

The media influence all sorts of things and you'd be a fool to think jurors are not at risk.
While some jurors have been caught Facebooking the accused and even holding polls on how Facebook/Twitter thinks they should vote, not everyone doing such things will have been caught.

Indeed, all the evidence from the US, where such reporting is not restricted, seems to indicate that Juries will come to a verdict without regard for media bias.

So how did OJ get off, then?

Link me to this thread the first time a killer walks free because a jury is prejudiced by the media.

That's the problem - None of them technically are killers, because they were all found innocent.
Some cases (quite a few, actually) have had to be retried and the press has been fined on many occasions... but again, those are just the ones that were caught.
But of course we'll often never know if an innocent one was jailed or a guilty one released, at least not until many years after it matters.

I'll link you back here the next time you out-fascist the fascists...

How is protecting potentially innocent people from a lifetime of media assassination in any way fascist?

If anything, live public trials is a staple feature of highly fascist societies in sci-fi depictions... but again - Have at it. Let's all be open and free with reporteing absolutely everything about trials. Include all youth courts in that, while you're at it.

https://rightsinfo.org/can-social-me...ht-fair-trial/

And yet, when the press is free to report, even live video from the court room, and has significant bias against the defendant, the Jury still seems to find a just verdict.

How is it just when the very nature of the press is bias? Justice doesn't just mean having Judge Judy presiding in an official court... It has to be a fair, unprejudiced trial with innocence presumed until proven otherwise - Countless cases have been tried following massive media coverage - You really think all those juries just disregarded that?

https://www.judiciary.uk/wp-content/...may-2016-2.pdf

[peterb]

But the press is free to report events after the evidence has been admitted and submitted - except where there is a risk of prejudicing the procedures because of unusual circumstances.

[TeePee]

So how did OJ get off, then?

How did OJ get off? With the media howling for blood, screaming about his guilt? Could it be the Jury looked at the evidence in the botched investigation and formed their own opinion? Strange...

[Saracen]

And yet, when the press is free to report, even live video from the court room, and has significant bias against the defendant, the Jury still seems to find a just verdict.

Not if the jury gets information tbe judge has ruled they must not.

You can't (credibly) order juries to "ignore" certain evidence. You cannkt unring that bell, whatever judges order.

And bear in mind, you cannot take either a guilty or not-guilty verdict to indicate whether a ttual is fair or not, and nobody can be sure why juries vote this way or that Even an indivudyal juror csbnot ve entirrly sure what, if any, subconcious impact specific evidence has.

I was on a jury where one standard rule of trial procedhre was overturned by the trial judge because it met one of the very limited exceptions, namely, the accused's criminal record was revealed to the jury mid-trial. Why? Because his defence was more or less that the police planted it on me - they're bent" and the trial judge ruled that since his defence was a character attack, the jurors deserved to have some background on both the police witnesses and the accused,

Well, the accused had a criminal record the size of war and peace, mostly for burglary snd handling stolen goods, which is what he was on trial for, and I can say for a certainty tbat knowing that did not enhance his chances with the jury.

I think the evidence was sufficient to convict anyway, but I overheard one jury member tell another (paraphrasing) "I'm voting guilty. I think he did it but even if he didn't, with a record like that, he must've done plenty he got away with"

So, fsir trial? Yes, because his defence strategy opened the door. But without that background knowledge, he jyst mught have got more benefit of the doubt. His problem (IMHO) was that having been csught red-handed, and given the police evjdence, his only option was to discredit the police, regardless of how big a Hail Mary trying that was,

But .... had he not trued that and given the judge reason to rule his record admissible, he might have been acquitted. As it was, it was a 10-2 verdict.

Had he not tried that, that chance of acquittal would have been seriously damaged had a juror, just one, read about it in the local paper and told the other 11.

Hence, what papers can publish, or broadcasters put on air, is significantly restricted while the case is active. But as soon as it's over, and with rare exceptions, it's open-season on his case's details.

[Saracen]

How did OJ get off? With the media howling for blood, screaming about his guilt? Could it be the Jury looked at the evidence in the botched investigation and formed their own opinion? Strange...

Unless you were in court for the whole case, and the jury room for deliberations, it's pointless to speculate.

Also, US courts are not the same as UK courts, and nor are rules of evidence.

[TeePee]

I think the evidence was sufficient to convict anyway, but I overheard one jury member tell another (paraphrasing) "I'm voting guilty. I think he did it but even if he didn't, with a record like that, he must've done plenty he got away with"

Didn't you have an obligation to report that comment to the Judge? I know in the US (As we all fundamentally agree, a place where things are different), verdicts have been overturned based on comments by a juror.

[TeePee]

Unless you sere in court for the whole case, and the jury room for deliberations, it's pointless to speculate.

Also, US courts are not the same as UK courts, and nor are rules of evidence.

And yet such speculation provides us with by far the most useful example of the the lack of damage resulting from allowing such free expression.

[Ttaskmaster]

And yet such speculation provides us with by far the most useful example of the the lack of damage resulting from allowing such free expression.

You're absolutely right. I withdraw all previous arguments.

[Saracen]

Didn't you have an obligation to report that comment to the Judge? I know in the US (As we all fundamentally agree, a place where things are different), verdicts have been overturned based on comments by a juror.

What makes you think I didn't?

But I've already said more than I strictly should, and only because the case in question was, oh, more than 30 years ago.

However, I did get a legal opinion from an eminently qualified expert, which (and due to time passing, I'm summing up) was :-

1) It was within the jury room, so was "discussion" among jury, not to outdiders and not outside of jury room discussion. It just hsppened to be something said by one jurod to another when I was in conversation with someone else

2) It was personal opinion, not attempting to sway snother,

3) The first bit was the critical bit "I think he did it, but even if ... etc. Had he said, I think he's innocent but I'm voting guilty because he's done others" then THAT would have bern very different.

[Saracen]

And yet such speculation provides us with by far the most useful example of the the lack of damage resulting from allowing such free expression.

So on the one hand we have "such speculation", and on the other, the cilmination of 1000+ years of development of legal principle.

At this point, all I can say is that if the US legal system operates as you say, I'm glad I live here not there. It's not the only US legal practice I think is assinine, but it's up there.

So we'll just have to disagree. I don't see you changing your mind and I sure won't, o I think I'll leave it at that.