[Zedicus]

I was just watching the news this afternoon and they had a report that simply ticks me off!:fire:

Apparently now because of some people saying drogatory things about a Soccer Player they are goint to now monitor every type of two way internet comunication and the goverment will sue anyone who makes what can be classified as derogitory comments about the goverment, or vip's such as soccer players....:scrutiny:

(I have no Link for this, but hope to find at least one later...)

.....I gotta get outta this place........:banghead:

[tommytrauma]

Would love to see a link for this.

[Mk VII]

http://media.guardian.co.uk/presspublishing/story/0,7495,1053221,00.html

The attorney general, Lord Goldsmith, warned newspapers last night that increasingly fevered coverage of rape allegations against eight Premiership footballers could prejudice any future trial.
Lord Goldsmith's intervention came in the wake of widespread coverage of allegations by a 17-year-old girl that she was attacked in a central London hotel by the footballers.
The allegations were carried on the front pages of several newspapers yesterday, as well as on broadcast media and the internet, where websites carried the names of players rumoured to be involved.
The Daily Sport meanwhile published the name of a club it claimed was at the centre of the investigation, accompanied by an editorial which said it would be "foolhardy" to name individuals.
As investigators from Operation Sapphire, Scotland Yard's specialist sex crimes unit, viewed CCTV footage and completed a forensic search of rooms at the Grosvenor House hotel, where the attack is alleged to have taken place, concerns were raised at the prospect of the players' names becoming public.
David Blunkett, the home secretary, is keen to avoid legislation and is known to be concerned that if the footballers' names do become widely known the case could be cited by MPs in favour of legislation to restrict what the media can report in such cases.
The case, which follows recent police investigations into alleged sexual offences by television celebrities Matthew Kelly and John Leslie (neither of whom was charged), could also have an impact on the Sexual Offences bill, which is due back before the Commons later this month.
Currently newspapers and other media are bound by defamation laws and the Contempt of Court Act, which is intended to prevent prejudicial information reaching the public domain but is rarely invoked.
Both the home affairs and culture, media and sport select committees have proposed an amendment to the bill that would make it illegal for newspapers to publish the name of anyone being investigated for a sexual offence until they have been charged.
Before this case arose Mr Blunkett instructed officials to attempt to engineer a compromise. He is particularly concerned about the role of the police in the naming of players, and has asked the Association of Chief Police Officers for assistance in preventing officers leaking information to the press.
Mr Blunkett has also sought to engage the assistance of the media. In the summer the Home Office wrote to Les Hinton, the chairman of the Press Complaints Commission's code of practice committee, seeking a hardening of the voluntary code which governs newspaper journalists.
In his guidance to editors Lord Goldsmith said he was concerned that evidence in the case was not distorted by "potentially prejudicial reporting", and warned editors not to allow their staff to approach potential witnesses.
"Although there have not yet been any arrests, and there may not be any, if there are to be criminal proceedings ... editors should not engage in conduct, nor publish material, including comment, that may create a substantial risk of serious prejudice to the course of justice in these prosecutions."
The attorney general's warning, echoed by the Metropolitan police last night, emphasises the scale of interest in the allegations, which first emerged in the Sun on Monday. Football has never had a higher profile, and were eight of the game's leading players to face such serious charges the trial would be a huge story.
The combination of celebrity and sex tests the media's powers of restraint like no other however, and there are fears that the players could be named in a similar way to Leslie, who was named in connection with an alleged sexual assault on Ulrika Jonsson by TV presenter Matthew Wright.
Paul Gilbert, a media lawyer at Finers Stephens Innocent, said that a swift conclusion to the police investigation was crucial both to the fair treatment of the individuals involved and the interests of justice. The police yesterday said they had begun liasing with the crown prosecution service, but declined to say whether charges were likely.
"The longer this goes on without the police either bringing charges or dismissing the girl's allegations the more likely it will be that the names leak out," Mr Gilbert said.
"The papers, particularly the tabloids, will not give up on it, and the longer the police leave it the less chance there is that a fair trial can be held. If the speculation goes on for a while and charges are brought the defence will be able to show the judge a pile of newspaper cuttings and claim he will not get a fair trial. That is not in the best interests of justice."
Mr Gilbert said that the internet posed problems that the contempt laws were ill suited to combat. "It adds a whole new facet to the problem. You have a completely unregulated environment to which millions have access in which rumours abound. In the eyes of the law, however, I think there is still a difference between a rumour on a website and one published in a newspaper."
The Internet Service Providers' Association called for clarification of the law regarding their role in police defamatory or prejudicial material published online.
"At the moment it is very confusing when it comes to defamation," said a spokesman. "As internet service providers we are not publishers, yet at the moment we are having to act as judge and jury on what we take down, taking responsibility for content. That is not right, a judge needs to decide this."

[agricola]

Zedicus,

Please please please stop making up nonsense about things.

The AG has, correctly, stated that any UK based website or media outlet that reports this case at the moment will at least leave themselves wide open to defamation claims and possible action for Contempt. The speculation on these sites and in the media - which is at fever pitch anyway - will likely (even now) ruin any hope of conviction because the defence will have a very easy task to show that the notorious and irresponsible reporting by the various facets of the media will prejudice the trial. The individual concerned sues the media outlet(s) concerned in a matter of slander or libel; the state deals with issues around Contempt (the last major incident around this was the collapse of the first trial of three Leeds players accused of GBH on Safraz Najeeb which failed due to a hugely mistimed article in one of the Mirror papers).

Anyone who knows of the effect the media had on the trial of the girls accused of killing Alison Shaunessey (and the subsequent successful appeal of the two accused), and has seen the circus around the Kobe Bryant "trial" in the US, or the recent (as mentioned in Mk VII's post) John Leslie accusation (in which he was never identified by the alleged victim who never made a complaint), or the recent Popbitch closure around Beckham rumours (which actually subsequently turned out to be correct) can see that the media has gone too far in this.

Personally, I would be in favour of having all rape and indecent assault trials held under reporting restrictions and actions for contempt taken against any newspaper or ISP that breaches those restrictions. The correct place for a trial is in the courtroom, not on pages 1, 2, 4 and 5.

The actual story for those who want to know is that a seventeen year old girl made a report of rape at a central London police station on Saturday and that the Police are investigating. That is all anyone really knows in the media and the rest is guesswork, or lies.

[cuchulainn]

The AG has, correctly, stated that any UK based website or media outlet that reports this case at the moment will at least leave themselves wide open to defamation claims If the press libels or slanders a person, that person should (and does) have the power to sue the press.Personally, I would be in favour of having all rape and indecent assault trials held under reporting restrictions and actions for contempt taken against any newspaper or ISP that breaches those restrictions. Prior restraint is akin to the police putting innocent people in jail because the police fear those innocent people might commit crimes.

Prior restraint is as contemptible as findings of guilt without trial.

There is no valid reason for prior restraint. None. Ever. Period.

[agricola]

cuchulain,

Prior restraint is akin to the police putting innocent people in jail because the police fear those innocent people might commit crimes.

Prior restraint is as contemptible as findings of guilt without trial.

There is no valid reason for prior restraint. None. Ever. Period.

err........... "reporting restrictions" mean that at the moment the name of the victim (i would suggest the defendant is added to this) is not reported in the press - together with some other aspects of the case, depending on the circumstances; but the press remain at the trial and can report on the facts of the case provided these reports are accurate.

HMG bringing actions for Contempt is also fully justifiable because much of the reporting serves no purposes apart from selling papers and corrupting justice. The Leslie case shows this, not as well as the Leeds player's first trial however.

Saying that ensuring a fair trial for the accused is somehow equal to imprisoning someone falsely is, frankly, nonsense and you should know better.

here is something you may find useful:

http://www.jsboard.co.uk/publications/rrcc/mf_00.htm

[cuchulainn]

reporting restrictions" mean that at the moment the name of the victim (i would suggest the defendant is added to this) is not reported in the press Yet you would punish the press, not those who violated whatever restraint is placed upon court personnel. You would punish the press for "leaks" rather than the leakers.
HMG bringing actions for Contempt is also fully justifiable That is impossible. There is no justification for prior restraint. None. Ever. Period.Saying that ensuring a fair trial for the accused is somehow equal to imprisoning someone falsely is, frankly, nonsense and you should know better. I never said that. I said, "Prior restraint is akin to the police putting innocent people in jail because the police fear those innocent people might commit crimes." In both cases someone is being punished for what they might do prior to their doing it. (The press's punishment is censorship; the innocent people's is jailtime).

You are falsely equating prior restraint with fair trials. Sometimes the press interferes with fair trials. Sometimes the press ENSURES a fair trial. Sometimes they have no effect -- but that is a moot point because there is no justification for prior restraint. None. Ever. Period.

[cordex]

cuchulainn,
This isn't prior restraint. They haven't arrested anyone.
This is censorship. Something our government is known to do from time to time, too.

[agricola]

cuchulainn,

You are very, very wrong. The Press should ensure a fair trial (though that is not its function) which it does by its presence as impartial reporters of the facts of a case. I am not saying that the Press should be excluded nor am I saying that they should be banned on reporting on the case.

What I am saying is that the present state of affairs in offences of sexual assault should be extended to the suspect as well as the victim, in the interests of fairness.

You do not have the right to know that someone else has been the victim of rape, and you shouldnt have the right to know that someone has been falsely accused of a similar offence. The decision to reveal that fact should remain with the individual concerned and not the Press - especially when that persons' name is going to be used to sell newspapers or produce other financial gain for the media company concerned. I fail to see how one can proclaim the right to privacy from the state and yet defend the right of private companies to intrude on that privacy in the most public of ways.

The Press does have a right to report the facts of the case accurately, as well as to name the accused if he or she was found guilty. It does not have the right to pronounce guilt, blacken the name of the accused (or the victim) or interfere with the adminstration of justice, all three of which are being done now and will continue to be done until some sanity is restored to proceedings.

If the Press wasnt behaving in this way - and inviting the corruption of Court staff makes them guilty of corruption (its not as if you see secretaries going into bars looking for people to sell their employers secrets to, is it) - then there would be no need for protection.

[cuchulainn]

This isn't prior restraint ... This is censorship.

Prior restraint is a form of censorship. In free expression cases, "prior restraint" means government censorship (restraint) of what the press can print with the purpose of stopping some potential wrong/problem/annoyance :)

[cuchulainn]

I am not saying that the Press should be excluded nor am I saying that they should be banned on reporting on the case. I never said you said that. You are saying they should banned from reporting on the case before the trial. I don't care whether the the censorship is partial and/or temporary. It is just as contemptible no matter the degree or duration.What I am saying is that the present state of affairs in offences of sexual assault should be extended to the suspect as well as the victim, in the interests of fairness. I agree, and there should be restrictions placed upon court personnel. That need does not justify prior restraint of the press.You do not have the right to know that someone else has been the victim of rape, and you shouldnt have the right to know that someone has been falsely accused of a similar offence. My rights are not at issue here. We're talking about the press's rights. The press has the right to report on whatever they want -- whatever, whenever, however, whyever. Period. No exceptions.It does not have the right to pronounce guilt, blacken the name of the accused No it doesn't. But the damaged person should sue AFTER the fact. The government has no business stopping the press from doing that prior to their doing it. None. Period.or interfere with the adminstration of justice Actually, the press does have that right. The court also has a need to stop that -- but prior restraint is not the answer. If the court wants to stop information from getting out, it should punish its own people -- not the press for what they might do.and inviting the corruption of Court staff makes them guilty of corruption There is no corruption in the press getting information and reporting it.

[cordex]

cuchulainn,
You are correct. I was confusing myself.

[agricola]

cuchulainn,

I never said you said that. You are saying they should banned from reporting on the case before to the trial

no, I am saying that they should restrict their reporting to the facts of the case, aside from the identities of the accused and the victim in matters of sexual assault.

I agree, and there should be restrictions placed upon court personnel. That need does not justify prior restraint of the press.

There is no corruption in the press getting information and reporting it.

Restrictions are already in place on court personnel - they are also in place on those who corrupt them, as they should be for whatever reason. By your logic, the Press would be permitted to publish the name, and address of someone under witness protection having dishonestly obtained that information regardless of the danger that person would be placed in.

My rights are not at issue here. We're talking about the press's rights. The press has the right to report on whatever they want -- whatever, whenever, however, whyever. Period. No exceptions.

I would have thought your rights protected you against more than an oppressive governnent - yet it seems not. Are you saying someone with a Press pass has more rights than you?

The Press does not have the right to interfere with the administration of justice - at all. Again, given your argument the Press can report anything it wants, whether truth or falsehood and corrupt as many court staff, jurors or justices in the interests of "the story" (and, of course, the bottom line) and it will be the justice systems fault. That is absurd.

[cuchulainn]

no, I am saying that they should restrict their reporting to the facts of the case, aside from the identities of the accused and the victim in matters of sexual assault. Again, whether the ban is total or partial is irrelevent. It's all just as dispicable.By your logic, the Press would be permitted to publish the name, and address of someone under witness protection having dishonestly obtained that information regardless of the danger that person would be placed in. It would be contemptible of the press to do that, but yes they do have that right. The victim or his survivors could sue the press if damages occured.Are you saying someone with a Press pass has more rights than you? No, I was simply directing you back to the topic -- the rights of the press. FWIW, I have just as much right to seek out and publicize the information regardless of my press status, but that's not what we're talking about.The Press does not have the right to interfere with the administration of justice - at all. Yes it does. Sometimes that benefits society; sometimes not. But that is a moot point because the government has no business engaging in prior restraint to stop potential interference. None. Ever. Period.Again, given your argument the Press can report anything it wants, whether truth or falsehood and corrupt as many court staff, jurors or justices in the interests of "the story" (and, of course, the bottom line) and it will be the justice systems fault. You're confusing (or at least melding) two points.

1) The press has the right to print whatever it wants, even falsehoods. But if, for example, it slanders or libels someone, it will face the consequences -- but AFTER it has actually done so.

2) If information the justice system wants kept secret gets out, that is the justice system's fault. There is no crime in seeking information -- though there might be in giving it to the press. To wit, the military has an interest in keeping certain things secret, but it is no crime for the press to seek to learn them. It was illegal for the Pentagon Papers to be leaked; but not illegal for the Washington Post to print them.

[agricola]

It would be contemptible of the press to do that, but yes they do have that right. The victim or his survivors could sue the press if damages occured.


*throws hands up in air* :rolleyes: :rolleyes:

[Mr. Bombastic]

Cuchulainn, please understand that neither the people nor the press have rights over here, only privileges which can be revoked.

[agricola]

mods,

please can we remove all the laws of civilized debate and take our lead from certain posters, and just make up all the facts / events / other information we need to peddle our ideas. I feel that would be more rewarding than reality.

[bountyhunter]

UK Throws Citizens Right to express there own opinion online out the window....

Have the same problem over on the 1911 Forum.... but I was under the mistaken impression that the USA was actually a FREE country...(?)

[cuchulainn]

agricola: *throws hands up in air* Yep. It's absolute. And you though we Americans were hardcore on gun rights.agricola: please can we remove all the laws of civilized debate and take our lead from certain posters, and just make up all the facts / events / other information we need to peddle our ideas. I feel that would be more rewarding than reality. I certainly hope that wasn't directed at me. :scrutiny: Mr. Bombastic: Cuchulainn, please understand that neither the people nor the press have rights over here, only privileges which can be revoked. Actually, you do have those rights -- they just aren't recognized and are violated at will. I know I'm being pedantic, but attitude becomes reality. :)bountyhunter: Have the same problem over on the 1911 Forum.... but I was under the mistaken impression that the USA was actually a FREE country...(?) With all due respect, that's private property and the owner can make any rules about expression he wants. Look at it this way: If you forbid your neighbor from erecting a "Hillary 04" sign on your front yard, you are not violating his rights. The 1911 thing is the same, but cyber. :)

[agricola]

cuchulainn,

it wasnt aimed at you - rather the likes of Zedicus who has once again (its the third time this week) spouted out a load of lies that he suddenly cannot find evidence for. as a case in point, this thread is at least somewhat based in the truth - but he has embellished the intial post to the point of almost totally obscuring the interesting points within.

you see what you and me were having was a debate on the facts; with him he just makes stuff up and trys to debate that a la Lott or Bellisiles- which is beneath this board and it is about time that the community here pulled him up on it.

also, returning to the adult section of the debate, please note that the Press do report things that I objected to all the time (i cited them in the evidence) - but that its abundantly clear to me that they cannot have full freedom to print what they want, especially when it would seriously affect the life of someone or seriously affect the course of justice. if i, as a private citizen, were to corrupt someone with access to private data and use that data for my own ends, i would likely be arrested - the same should happen to the Press, otherwise they do end up superior to the man in the street.

[Mk VII]

So let's run through the following scenario:-

Victim makes complaint, complaint investigated, suspect arrested, charges laid.

Press publish full details of allegations and suspect's identity together with past history and speculations as to guilt or innocence.

Suspect's lawyer submits to the court that his client will be unable to obtain a fair trial due to the extensive publicity surrounding the case. Judge agrees, trial aborted, suspect released.

Victim told by prosecutor "Gee, that's tough. Go find yourself a big lump of dough, hire a lawyer and sue his a__ and hope you get something resembling justice. Best outcome, he'll have to pay you something, which your lawyers will probably take most of, but he won't do any jail time. But never mind, the liberty of the press has been preserved here. "

Do any of you think this will advance the administration of the criminal justice system, or that anyone in this country would hail this as an improvement on the present situation (apart from Rupert Murdoch), given that we're not saddled with a two hundred year constitutional document designed for a horse and buggy society?

[agricola]

*bows in admiration towards Mk VII*

[cuchulainn]

agricola,

Fair 'nuff...

...though you're wrong about the press.

.....

MK VII

I can come up with scenarios -- based on reality -- that show the opposite.

On a regular basis, men are falsely accused and/or tried in kangaroo courts and imprisoned or at least held unjustly. The press -- not burdened by prior restraint -- lets the public know about these injustices and public outrage puts a stop to them.

Iraq? China? Uganda?

Nope, the USA and the UK in the 20th century. Blacks were imprisoned all over the USA (not just the South) in kangaroo courts in the 1920s to 1950s, often being executed. Often, Catholics were held indefinitely without trial and often under mistaken or false pretenses in Northern Ireland in the 1970s (yes, the bad guys were caught too). Press interference stopped injustice in both cases.

What does that prove? That no one, including the government, can predict whether press interference will cause problems, be neutral or actually do some good.

That's why prior restraint is not justified. Ever. Period.

Now, if the press gets punished after it crosses a line -- libel, slander, harrasment, etc. -- then, as I have said repeatedly, punish it. But not prior to the misdeed. And, yes, censorship is punishment.

...................
And btw, our two-hundred year old document is not the source of the rights it enumerates. It merely recognizes and protects them. Those rights existed at least since the first caveman said oogaah or picked up a rock to defend himself. Vote the Constitution void, and I'll claim these rights just as strongly ... as should you.

[Zedicus]

the likes of Zedicus who has once again (its the third time this week) spouted out a load of lies that he suddenly cannot find evidence for.
Do you purposly make it a point to not read the entirety of my posts before flying off of the handle?

I am sure if you re read the innital post you will notice this bit.
(I have no Link for this, but hope to find at least one later...)
And as I have an extreemly busy offline life I have not since had the time to even visit THR untill now.

One could be forgiven for mistaking your purpose for visiting THR as troublemaking, why is this?

Have I Provoked you in any unrefuteable manner? Answer: No.

Have I Posted anything that I did not have a link to online proof, without mentioning that I had no link, and was relying on my own memory for the post? Answer: No.

Yet you persist in making petty arguements of my posts, Insulting me with accusations of untruthfullness in practicaly everything that I post.

As for the reason behind your constant Persistance of trying to disprove practicaly anything anyone says that is in any way against the UK wether it be truthfull or not, I am at a loss and will not be as petty by trying to make pointless asumptions as to why.

My main point being, If you have a problem with the comments and information posted by mysellf or anyone else on THR, please either keep them to yoursellf or use E-mail/Private messages, attacking a member's conduct & truthfullness in the manner you are doing is not only uncivilised, but very bad manners in my openion.
Not to mention that I mysellf am (and possably others) finding it tiresome.

and Calling for my Removal from THR is very pathetic, if I had broken any of THR's rules I am positive that one of the Moderators would have notified me, and if I had indeed persisted in breaking the rules I would not be posting this now.

Good day to you.

[agricola]

zedicus,

so far you have claimed:

i) that Scottish Police found bits of a corpse spread all over the country and yet deemed the death "non-suspicious", and also claimed that they ignored the killing of a lad on the railway. No evidence was ever presented for this;

ii) that the entire force of the English bureaucracy was intent on further tightening the offensive weapons legislation, despite the fact that our legislation is already very stringent indeed. No evidence was ever presented for this;

http://www.thehighroad.org/showthread.php?s=&threadid=42022

iii) that the Government was monitoring all electronic / internet communication in order to stifle dissent against the Government by means of litigation. No evidence was ever presented for this;

http://www.thehighroad.org/showthread.php?s=&threadid=42645

iv) that I am "seem to be heavaly (sic)against airguns, and seem to think they are just as deadly as a .22 bolt action rifle". No evidence was ever presented for this;

http://www.thehighroad.org/showthread.php?s=&threadid=41945

v) that huge swathes of the UK are racist against Americans, hiking prices, refusing to hire personnel. No evidence was ever presented for this;

http://www.thehighroad.org/showthread.php?s=&threadid=29227

vi) that a Police Officer was so inept that he (or she) publicly stated that self defence was illegal in the UK. I did let this go at the time, but when viewed against your other posts, it makes me very suspicious.

http://www.thehighroad.org/showthread.php?s=&postid=378072#post378072

vii) that two Policemen walked past a visibly armed individual:

http://www.thehighroad.org/showthread.php?s=&threadid=31841&highlight=desert+eagle

viii) that you required a TV licence for a computer in the UK, a point which was never withdrawn:

http://www.thehighroad.org/showthread.php?s=&threadid=34529&highlight=computer

I will give you one, maybe two - but there are at least eight occasions, six of which it should be easy to evidence using news sites (most papers in the UK have them, and the bigger sites archive all stories) or Google. Three of the stories have just this week happened, one of which cited my own opinion on this board and yet no evidence for those has been presented either. It seems clear to me that the reason you cannot evidence these stories is because you have made them up yourself, or embellished them from existing stories.

Also I did not call for your removal from THR (which makes it nine erroneous statements) but rather requested that the community speak to you about it. This board has one of the highest levels of civilized debate on the web on any topic and, frankly, your activities cited above show a great deal of disrespect for it.

As I have oft stated, I have no problems debating morals or issues of fact with others, on many topics, but I will not sit by and watch you, and one or two others, repeatedly make nonsensical and fraudulent claims about my country in order to make points.

[Zedicus]

I have grown tired of your pointless picking at straws.
as of this moment, you are on ignore.

Have a nice day!

[Mr. Bombastic]

ithe entire force of the English bureaucracy was intent on further tightening the offensive weapons legislation, despite the fact that our legislation is already very stringent indeed. No evidence was ever presented for this;

We all know, that if the government could ban all 'offensive weapons' again, they would.

that the Government was monitoring all electronic / internet communication in order to stifle dissent against the Government by means of litigation. No evidence was ever presented for this;

ISPs in the UK have been forced by the government to keep records of internet traffic, which can be turned over to the police at request. They do this 'to reduce crime', as they always say when they take a freedom away.

that huge swathes of the UK are racist against Americans, hiking prices, refusing to hire personnel. No evidence was ever presented for this;

Alot of the UK is very much irrationally against the US, though many are against the French and the Germans too. I don't think I even have to mention the Welsh!

that a Police Officer was so inept that he (or she) publicly stated that self defence was illegal in the UK. I did let this go at the time, but when viewed against your other posts, it makes me very suspicious.

For what it's worth, self defence is illegal in the UK simply because defensive weapons are illegal. Would it matter if baking a cake was legal if ovens were not?

that you required a TV licence for a computer in the UK, a point which was never withdrawn:

You actually do need a TV licence for many computers nowadays. TV cards often come as standard, and a licence is required for that equiptment (whether you use it or not). That is basically because they have no way of knowing if you are using your PC/TV card as their equiptment can only track regular TVs. Thus, it is assumed you will be using the equiptment.

I will not sit by and watch you, and one or two others, repeatedly make nonsensical and fraudulent claims about my country in order to make points.

You know the UK is not a country, right?

[agricola]

mr.bombastic,

nope, they were all statements made as "news" by Zedicus and, when faced with them, he has put me on ignore. those claims are easily-provable as fraudulent, hence his response.

Alot of the UK is very much irrationally against the US, though many are against the French and the Germans too. I don't think I even have to mention the Welsh!

so "most" shop owners gouge US customers by up to 70%? these would be the majority of shops that dont label their produce then............

:rolleyes:

oh, and what was your point about the Welsh?

[Mr. Bombastic]

I wrote what I wrote. Nothing up there about over-charging people. Just thought I'd throw in some info regarding the points I knew something about.

My point regarding the Welsh, was that they get alot of stick too. At the moment though, aggravated by peoples view of the War against Saddam, anti-American feeling is quite high.

And Agricola, you're notorious for dodging points yourself, so less of the 'pot, kettle, black' eh?

[agricola]

mr bombastic,

like when? and exactly when did i make up stories to prove my points?

[agricola]

isnt it funny how people make statements, have them challenged and then they disappear?

i hope you all realise that you have a veritable pocket bellisiles in your man zedicus.

[Mr. Bombastic]

Mr. Bombastic:
Agricola, you're notorious for dodging points yourself, so less of the 'pot, kettle, black' eh?

Agricola:
exactly when did i make up stories to prove my points?

Point proven. You have a bad habit of re-writing other peoples sentences and then responding to them as you see fit. Also, you like to ignore legitimate points that you don't seem to be able to refute.

Though, we're getting off the topic of firearms here...

[agricola]

mr bombastic,

you clearly implied an equivalence between what you allege I have been doing, and what Zedicus has clearly been doing (if you didnt mean that, then why use "pot, kettle, black"?). This view is clearly nonsense, unless you can prove otherwise. If I have been doing what you suggest, these posts shouldnt be that hard to find.

besides, I havent heard you correct any of Zedicus' statements; mind you, considering your sig line, I wonder whether you are capable.
:rolleyes:

[dustind]

I guess it comes down to, "do you trust the government with the power to stop the press?" I do not, there is no telling what people could get away with if they knew it could not be reported.

MK VII: How does our constitution being old have anything to do with this case, or the press in general? How has the role of the press changed over time? The First amendment is still just as valid today as it always has been.

[Mk VII]

This discussion has wandered rather far from the original point, which was the role of reporting restrictions on pending trials in the internet age. I don’t think there is any easy answer to information which ought to be kept confidential from leaking out. Even if restrictions could be enforced on U.K.-based discussion groups they could hardly be enforceable at law on overseas-based ones, particularly U.S.-based ones.
Many here seem to be arguing for a system of jurisprudence that is entirely retributive, with only ex post facto penalties for transgression. But, with information, once the genie is out of the bottle he can’t be put back in and those whose reputations have been unjustly smeared, or who never had the chance to put their case before the jury and will always remain under a cloud have small consolation in seeing those who ruined them given a short jail sentence (very unlikely anyway) or a fine which their paper will pay for them anyway.
No doubt your system suits you – it doesn’t suit us, and you won’t find journalists here arguing for their untrammelled right to print whatever they like – not one.
To touch on your second point, the Second Amendment is often held up here as an example of the dangers of a fixed constitution devised for a very different age which cannot easily be modernised. “It might have made some sense at the time – but who could rationally defend its continued existence today?” is often the line. You are certainly fortunate to enjoy continuing to own the many fine firearms that you have over there but to borrow a line from Lord Of The Rings, “You are sitting in a fortress – outside it is getting dark.”

[fallingblock]

who are busily snuffing out the candles:fire:


How could any thinking individual PREFER the darkness?

************************************************************
"....the Second Amendment is often held up here as an example of the dangers of a fixed constitution devised for a very different age which cannot easily be modernised. “It might have made some sense at the time – but who could rationally defend its continued existence today?” is often the line. You are certainly fortunate to enjoy continuing to own the many fine firearms that you have over there but to borrow a line from Lord Of The Rings, “You are sitting in a fortress – outside it is getting dark.”"
************************************************************

[cuchulainn]

Many here seem to be arguing for a system of jurisprudence that is entirely retributive, with only ex post facto penalties for transgression. Yes, we think people should be punished after they do something wrong, not before.But, with information, once the genie is out of the bottle he can’t be put back in and those whose reputations have been unjustly smeared You're creating a false distinction. It's the same with any crime. You can't un-kill or un-rape someone. Those are much worse crimes than anything the press could do. Would you say that it's awful that we punish people for rape and murder only after the commit the crimes? Silly question you say? Yet you support punishing the press prior to their doing anything wrong. No doubt your system suits you – it doesn’t suit us, and you won’t find journalists here arguing for their untrammelled right to print whatever they like – not one. Too bad. Some things are universally wrong and not a matter of cultural preference. Things like censorship, wife beating, slavery and forced female circumcision are wrong no matter what the majority of the practicing society thinks.

[agricola]

cuchulainn,

Too bad. Some things are universally wrong and not a matter of cultural preference. Things like censorship, wife beating, slavery and forced female circumcision are wrong no matter what the majority of the practicing society thinks.

but in some cases censorship is justified (child porn being the most obvious), and I dont think placing censorship along with those other activities reflects that. There are going to be some restrictions on absolute free speech, and personally I view this the same as your (as in the US as a whole) famous example of shouting "fire" in a movie theatre.

You're creating a false distinction. It's the same with any crime. You can't un-kill or un-rape someone. Those are much worse crimes than anything the press could do.

I agree with the first part of this, but denying the victim, or victim's next of kin, their chance of justice on the sole basis of increasingly scandalous reporting in order to sell more newspapers than a rival is, personally, up there with the most disgusting behaviour. The main reason reporting restrictions were brought in in the first place was because of the behaviour of these papers, and none of their behaviour since - from the frenzied reports on the Bulger case, Hillsborough, several wars, the death of Princess Diana, the Hutton Inquiry, about a hundred luridly reported killings and now the pornographic and titillating nature of reporting of what may well turn out to be the gang rape of a seventeen year old girl - has allowed me to even contemplate your point of view.

[cuchulainn]

but in some cases censorship is justified (child porn being the most obvious), We don't censor people from making films with children. Rather, we punish(*) those who participate in the rape of a child including those who encourage the crime via receiving the film. Your desires with court journalism would be analogous to erecting severe prior restraints against film makers' ever using child actors -- even for G-Rated movies -- because we fear they might rape children (and I'd be willing to bet that child porn is a much more common problem than the press interfering with getting a neutral jury.)

As I have said REPEATEDLY, I have no problems with punishing the media after they commit crimes. They rape children? Punish them. They libel, slander or harass? Punish them. They bribe a court employee to get a scoop? Punish them. They plant bugs? Punish them.

But prior restraint is not the answer. Ever. Period.

(*)Technically, the prosecution of child pornographers is not based on censorship of depicting sex with children, but rather is based on using the film as evidence of participating in the crime of rape. Indeed, AFAIK, it is quite legal to make films depicting sex acts with children (a la Lolita or American Beauty) as long as no actual minors are raped or otherwise compromised. Indeed, it sometimes can be legal to use minors in making sexual films -- Thora Birch, in American Beauty, was a minor (17) when the nude scene of her in the window was filmed. Heck, Brooke Shields was 11 when the full-frontal nudity scene of her was filmed for Pretty Baby in the 1970s.I dont think placing censorship along with those other activities reflects that. Well, the type of censorship -- prior restraint -- that we are speaking of absolutely belongs placed with such nefarious acts as wife beating, slavery and forced female circumcision. Why? Their wrongness trancends cultural preferences.

BTW, I'm certainly not equating them in terms of severity.There are going to be some restrictions on absolute free speech, and personally I view this the same as your (as in the US as a whole) famous example of shouting "fire" in a movie theatre. The shouting "fire!" example is an urban legend. You can shout fire in a movie theater all you want. But if someone is hurt in the ensuing melee, you can be punished (kind of like slander). If the theater-owners loses business because of your false statements, he can recover damages from you.

In any event, I repeat, what you are calling for with court journalism would be akin to a prior restraint ban on speaking in a theater on the chance that someone might shout fire and start a deadly panic.

Incidentally, with your "absolute free speech" comment you are bordering on a strawman argument. I have repeatedly -- repeatedly -- made it clear that I am not against reining in the press's freedom by punishing it after it does something wrong. I'm against prior restraint.but denying the victim, or victim's next of kin, their chance of justice on the sole basis of increasingly scandalous reporting in order to sell more newspapers than a rival is, personally, up there with the most disgusting behaviour. I agree. But that doesn't make prior restraint acceptable any more than it would be acceptable to punish men for rapes they haven't committed yet.

Prior restraint is just as despicable as what you describe.

And, by they way, I assume that the Times and the BBC and Reuters do not participate in the lurid headline race. Why should they be punished?
and none of their behaviour since <snip> has allowed me to even contemplate your point of view. People film their rapes of children every day, yet you don't support a ban of children on film. How do you live with yourself not calling for the makers of Teletubbies to censored? ;)