Yup.
England, as a free nation, is gone and here's why
- Thread starter musterion
- Start date
Yup.
Arthur Brain
Well-known member
What "lack of rights" are you referring to exactly?
annabenedetti
like marbles on glass
It's still an upheld case of prior restraint, so it is possible.
Neither did the UK court.
It explains it according to UK law very well. If you don't agree with it it's fine, but it doesn't mean the UK is facing armageddon, or that the imaginary armageddon is going to jump across the pond and devour us whole.
eider
Well-known member
Oh well........ you didn't know so I guess I will be easy on you.
Mr Robinson got himself convicted of various Public Order and Common Law offences for being an idiot outside Canterbury Crown Court last year, which earned him a PRISON SENTENCE!!!!
Where you live he would almost certainly have been chucked in the slammer...... you seem to jail a massive amount of petty crimes, but over here we 'SUSPEND' them subject to the convict's future good behaviour. This lovely guy already has convictions for mortgage fraud and other stuff, you know..... oh, you didn't know, did you!!!
Anyway..... so when he decides to hang around the entrance to another Crown Court, probably trying to intimidate arriving witnesses and so forth, the SUSPENDED SENTENCE is activated IMMEDIATELY!
I realise that your knowledge of our systems amounts to no more 'n' a can o' beans, so I'll be lenient with you.
annabenedetti
like marbles on glass
Oh well........ you didn't know so I guess I will be easy on you.
Mr Robinson got himself convicted of various Public Order and Common Law offences for being an idiot outside Canterbury Crown Court last year, which earned him a PRISON SENTENCE!!!!
Where you live he would almost certainly have been chucked in the slammer...... you seem to jail a massive amount of petty crimes, but over here we 'SUSPEND' them subject to the convict's future good behaviour. This lovely guy already has convictions for mortgage fraud and other stuff, you know..... oh, you didn't know, did you!!!
Anyway..... so when he decides to hang around the entrance to another Crown Court, probably trying to intimidate arriving witnesses and so forth, the SUSPENDED SENTENCE is activated IMMEDIATELY!
I realise that your knowledge of our systems amounts to no more 'n' a can o' beans, so I'll be lenient with you.
:up:
Arthur Brain
Well-known member
Oh well........ you didn't know so I guess I will be easy on you.
Mr Robinson got himself convicted of various Public Order and Common Law offences for being an idiot outside Canterbury Crown Court last year, which earned him a PRISON SENTENCE!!!!
Where you live he would almost certainly have been chucked in the slammer...... you seem to jail a massive amount of petty crimes, but over here we 'SUSPEND' them subject to the convict's future good behaviour. This lovely guy already has convictions for mortgage fraud and other stuff, you know..... oh, you didn't know, did you!!!
Anyway..... so when he decides to hang around the entrance to another Crown Court, probably trying to intimidate arriving witnesses and so forth, the SUSPENDED SENTENCE is activated IMMEDIATELY!
I realise that your knowledge of our systems amounts to no more 'n' a can o' beans, so I'll be lenient with you.
Don't hold your breath expecting Musty to address this. He'll either ignore it, whine to admin to have folk removed or lock the thread...
lain:
Don't hold your breath expecting Musty to address this. He'll either ignore it, whine to admin to have folk removed or lock the thread...
Your country has become the proverbial s - hole my friends. Maga
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Arthur Brain
Well-known member
About the usual mix of insightful thought and objective reasoning one would expect...
lain:
eider
Well-known member
Don't hold your breath expecting Musty to address this. He'll either ignore it, whine to admin to have folk removed or lock the thread...
This could be a kind of medal, or feather-in-cap!
The proud boast of 'I've been blocked by Musterion!' could be a high status condition.
Folks could put others down with,'You ain't bin blocked by Musty!'
eider
Well-known member
Oh I dunno......... our schools seem to be a bit more safe than some other places.
Anyway, I like it here....... a very happy place to live.
...hope you're happy where you are.
About the usual mix of insightful thought and objective reasoning one would expect...
The truth hurts I know. What a waste of a once great nation. Hajibaba the mayor? A B, please.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Oh I dunno......... our schools seem to be a bit more safe than some other places.
Anyway, I like it here....... a very happy place to live.
...hope you're happy where you are.
Aloha Magasukahs lol
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
With only a cursory look over the general flow of conversation, we're talking about gag orders, which are really about participants in trials, not the news media itself, though Courts can and have barred the press from hearings where their presence would jeopardize a fair hearing/due process, and where materials were sensitive as matters of national security.
In Nixon v Warner, the Court held that because the general public had no legal right to the tapes in question the press also failed to have a right, it having no established Constitutional claim extending beyond that of the public.
There's been a lot of serious and strong dissent related to protections for and rights/roles of the free press. Most of it is worth reading, if you have an interest. It's not all as settled as some suspect and the minority opinions in a good bit have been both persuasive and close. A lot of swing/split decisions.
In Nixon, Justices Stewart, Brennan, and Marshall held the right to publish news inherently carried the right to gather it, which ultimately led to a right to protect source materials in confidence (which was their aim in examination). The sub rosa back and forths largely sustain the notion that while the free press isn't a Constitutionally enfranchised entity, as an extension of the people de facto, interference with its operation in any sense necessarily involves fairly serious and compelling standards. That's been the trend.
Additional case worth looking at:
Montana ex rel Missoulian v. Montana Twenty-First Judicial Court, 933 P.2d 829 (Mont. 1997): spanked a lower court for a gag order issued without fact findings illustrating the necessity in preserving the defendant's right to a fair trial. So courts, especially lower ones, tend to be skittish in issuing and appellate courts severe in examining.
I'll go back in a bit and see if I'm missing a particular thrust and fine tune where needed.
In Nixon v Warner, the Court held that because the general public had no legal right to the tapes in question the press also failed to have a right, it having no established Constitutional claim extending beyond that of the public.
There's been a lot of serious and strong dissent related to protections for and rights/roles of the free press. Most of it is worth reading, if you have an interest. It's not all as settled as some suspect and the minority opinions in a good bit have been both persuasive and close. A lot of swing/split decisions.
In Nixon, Justices Stewart, Brennan, and Marshall held the right to publish news inherently carried the right to gather it, which ultimately led to a right to protect source materials in confidence (which was their aim in examination). The sub rosa back and forths largely sustain the notion that while the free press isn't a Constitutionally enfranchised entity, as an extension of the people de facto, interference with its operation in any sense necessarily involves fairly serious and compelling standards. That's been the trend.
Additional case worth looking at:
Montana ex rel Missoulian v. Montana Twenty-First Judicial Court, 933 P.2d 829 (Mont. 1997): spanked a lower court for a gag order issued without fact findings illustrating the necessity in preserving the defendant's right to a fair trial. So courts, especially lower ones, tend to be skittish in issuing and appellate courts severe in examining.
I'll go back in a bit and see if I'm missing a particular thrust and fine tune where needed.
In his case, that would be true of a burp, or some other gaseous explosion.About the usual mix of insightful thought and objective reasoning one would expect...
Arthur Brain
Well-known member
Insensate, at any rate.Well, you must have led a pretty pain free life then.
So, in a nut shell, the UK courts can tell the press not to report on the fact that a case is being tried. Period. Full stop. Until the case, and any connected cases, is over.
In the U.S. that won't fly. A Judge can try to stop the flow of info by forbidding people inside the case from talking to the press. But he can't stop the press from reporting whatever they can find out about it outside the gag order.
I would say these are two very different scenarios as far as the rights of the press. Agree or disagree?