England, as a free nation, is gone and here's why
- Thread starter musterion
- Start date
annabenedetti
like marbles on glass
Would that have flown in the U.S.?
glorydaz
Well-known member
Right you are. :thumb:
glorydaz
Well-known member
Looks like they've already backed out on the black out. Everyone was scoffing at them because everyone knew it already.
annabenedetti
like marbles on glass
Would what have flown, exactly? Neither of you is being specific.
nikolai_42
Well-known member
That addresses the legal side of things, but why were essentially all media outlets in Britain (save for the Independent) forced to remove or heavily redact their stories?
Arthur Brain
Well-known member
What "travesty"? Might wanna read "Blah"'s post and get educated before spouting off. Frankly, Robinson is hardly someone to be venerated as he's just another extremist crank like the clowns at "Britain First".
In our country extremists cranks have free speech and press.
Everyone does, that's how that works.
Could a judge tell the press they can't report on something in the U.S.?
Arthur Brain
Well-known member
Sure, but not if they break the law.
annabenedetti
like marbles on glass
Yes. A gag order. Prior Restraint. I grant there's a gray area there between the right to a fair trial and the right to free speech, but the 'state's edict' certainly could 'have flown' in the U.S.
Frequently a court will impose advance restrictions on lawyers, parties, and on the press in reporting of trials, particularly criminal trials. These restrictions are intended to protect the right to a fair trial, and to avoid interference with the judicial process. Nonetheless, they are a form of prior restraint, and the press in particular has often objected to such orders.
In Nebraska Press Assn. v. Stuart, 427 U.S. 539 (1976), the United States Supreme Court overturned such a "gag order". It ruled that alternative methods to help ensure a fair trial, short of prior restraints, might have been used, and that it was not all clear, under the circumstances, that the gag order would have the desired effect even if upheld. It also made a particular point of asserting that orders restricting reporting on events that occur in open court are not permissible. It wrote:
In Nebraska Press Assn. v. Stuart, 427 U.S. 539 (1976), the United States Supreme Court overturned such a "gag order". It ruled that alternative methods to help ensure a fair trial, short of prior restraints, might have been used, and that it was not all clear, under the circumstances, that the gag order would have the desired effect even if upheld. It also made a particular point of asserting that orders restricting reporting on events that occur in open court are not permissible. It wrote:
To the extent that this order prohibited the reporting of evidence adduced at the open preliminary hearing, it plainly violated settled principles: '[T]here is nothing that proscribes the press from reporting events that transpire in the courtroom.' Sheppard v. Maxwell, (384 U.S., at 362–363).
The Court's conclusion in this case reaffirmed its general opposition to prior restraints, and indicated that judicial gag orders would be sustained only in exceptional cases. It wrote:
Our analysis ends as it began, with a confrontation between prior restraint imposed to protect one vital constitutional guarantee and the explicit command of another that the freedom to speak and publish shall not be abridged. We reaffirm that the guarantees of freedom of expression are not an absolute prohibition under all circumstances, but the barriers to prior restraint remain high and the presumption against its use continues intact.
In the United Kingdom judicial gag orders are much more frequently employed, and the strong prejudice against them reflected in the above quote does not seem to be felt by British courts. Other countries also employ such orders more freely than the United States does.
Prior_restraint
Last edited:
In the US a judge can tell parties to a case not to talk to reporters, and tell reporters not to talk to them. But there is no way a Judge could tell the press that they can't report on a case that is happening.
https://www.rcfp.org/first-amendment-handbook/introduction-what-do-if-court-issues-gag-order
annabenedetti
like marbles on glass
Not being a lawyer (asking @Town Heretic to help me out here) I was searching for extra information regarding a subject I don't know well. I think there are rare instances where the argument can be made for either fair trial protection for the defendant or protection of the victim. Here's one such case:
Colorado high court upholds prior restraint in Bryant case
Prior Restraints | Feature | July 19, 2004
Colorado high court upholds prior restraint in Bryant case
- Citing the accuser's privacy interests, the Colorado Supreme Court barred the press from reporting details from mistakenly released transcripts of a closed hearing.
July 19, 2004 -- In a rare case upholding a prior restraint on the press, the Colorado Supreme Court narrowly ruled today that the news media may not publish details from transcripts of a closed-door hearing in the Kobe Bryant sexual assault case.
By a 4-3 vote, the court upheld District Court Judge Terry Ruckriegle's order threatening news organizations with contempt of court if they published information from the mistakenly released transcripts.
The court conceded that Ruckriegle's order amounted to a prior restraint on the free press, which is presumed to be unconstitutional. But the majority said the order was justified by the facts and context of the case.
"The state has an interest of the highest order in this case in providing a confidential evidentiary proceeding under the rape shield statute," the court ruled. "uch hearings protect the victims' privacy, encourage victims to report sexual assault, and further the prosecution and deterrence of sexual assault."
By a 4-3 vote, the court upheld District Court Judge Terry Ruckriegle's order threatening news organizations with contempt of court if they published information from the mistakenly released transcripts.
The court conceded that Ruckriegle's order amounted to a prior restraint on the free press, which is presumed to be unconstitutional. But the majority said the order was justified by the facts and context of the case.
"The state has an interest of the highest order in this case in providing a confidential evidentiary proceeding under the rape shield statute," the court ruled. "
annabenedetti
like marbles on glass
Keep in mind though, that this is a case in UK courts. Why are they holding the UK to a U.S. litmus, and then using it for fear mongering?
Did you read blah's link? If so, did the legal decision appear sound to you, according to UK law?
Did you read blah's link? If so, did the legal decision appear sound to you, according to UK law?
This is like the court saying that you can't even report that the case is happening. That would not fly here.
It's an illustration of what can happen without freedom of the press.
I get that it is OK under UK law, I'm appalled at the lack of rights they have.
annabenedetti
like marbles on glass
It did fly here. Hence "Colorado Court upholds prior restraint..."
annabenedetti
like marbles on glass
Your article says they couldn't publish excerpts from mistakenly released transcripts. They did not say they couldn't report on the case at all.