UK Politician Believes News Organizations Should Hide Articles During Important Trials

from the where-theory-meets-reality-and-reality-laughs dept

Tue, Feb 19th 2008 1:31pm — Mike Masnick

A former Lord Chancellor in the UK (who was in charge of running the legal system, apparently) is suggesting that on certain important lawsuits, news organizations be forced not to report on the case and to remove any articles in archives that could influence the case, as he's worried about the articles influencing the outcome. This, of course, is similar to the story we were discussing yesterday, where a California court forced Wikileaks offline so it wouldn't influence a Swiss lawsuit. Of course, the response to that should be instructive of what would happen in the UK. Almost immediately, people started mirroring the content and making sure it was widely available. In fact, the very effort of trying to hide that content drove much more attention to it -- something that should come as no surprise to those familiar with the Streisand Effect. Also, thanks to the internet, where anyone can effectively report on any topic, it's impossible to see how the UK would successfully ban and block any reports on these particular cases. Sure, it's nice in theory to say that you don't want reporting that would influence the outcome of a case. Unfortunately, reality is unlikely to cooperate with that theory.

Thank you for reading this Techdirt post. With so many things competing for everyone’s attention these days, we really appreciate you giving us your time. We work hard every day to put quality content out there for our community.

Techdirt is one of the few remaining truly independent media outlets. We do not have a giant corporation behind us, and we rely heavily on our community to support us, in an age when advertisers are increasingly uninterested in sponsoring small, independent sites — especially a site like ours that is unwilling to pull punches in its reporting and analysis.

While other websites have resorted to paywalls, registration requirements, and increasingly annoying/intrusive advertising, we have always kept Techdirt open and available to anyone. But in order to continue doing so, we need your support. We offer a variety of ways for our readers to support us, from direct donations to special subscriptions and cool merchandise — and every little bit helps. Thank you.

–The Techdirt Team

Filed Under: banning, censorship, news, trials

11 Comments

If you liked this post, you may also be interested in...

Reader Comments

Subscribe: RSS

View by: Time | Thread

Bill W, 19 Feb 2008 @ 1:46pm

Suject knowledge?
I'm no student of jurisprudence, heck I can barely spell it, but I recall that our (US) system was originally intended that the people on the jury know AS MUCH AS POSSIBLE about the subjects under trial rather than, as we have evolved, be as ignorant as possible. Yes, much of what is available might be wrong but that's what "arguments" are for and witnesses, and such. The thinking man should be able to make as best a judgement as he possibly can but in our current system he (she) is "spoon fed" only what the litigants want him to know.

I really don't think that's the way it was done back in the day ... are there any history folks out there that can tell me if I'm right or not?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Joe Smith, 19 Feb 2008 @ 2:26pm

Prejudice
There is a real concern that information in the public media will influence the jury. Juries are supposed to decide cases based on the evidence in the court, not what they heard about the case on Nancy Grace or America's Most Wanted.

We have elaborate laws deciding what is or is not admissible in a court, it makes no sense to allow all of the garbage on TV and the internet in by the back door.

It is over-reaching to try to pull old stories about a case but there is nothing wrong with suppressing reporting where the reporting would prejudice the right to a fair trial. The public's right to be titillated does not out weigh the privacy rights of the victims or the accused's right to a fair trial.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Woadan, 19 Feb 2008 @ 2:34pm

Justice for money, bow much can I pay?

I'd be for keeping things out of the way if each side could spend the same amount in the pursuit of justice.

We know that verdicts are often based on who spent the most money.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
David, 19 Feb 2008 @ 2:47pm

Sequester the Jury
Yes, a jury is supposed to decide a case based on the evidence presented in court and not what they hear about the case outside the courtroom. On the other hand one of the cornerstones of western civilization is freedom of speech. Censorship is never a good solution to a problem like this. Fortunately we have a tool to be used in such cases and it is not censorship. If you are worried that the media might influence the jury then sequester the jury, don't censor the media.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 19 Feb 2008 @ 2:51pm

Re: Prejudice
Moreover, if a decision is made with any inadmissible factors influencing it, it's going to be at risk on appeal. The argument about suppressing previously reported content is flawed however; jury members could still go to a public library and go through archives of newspaper content. The internet just makes the process easier - it doesn't make it possible in the first instance.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Lawrence D'Oliveiro, 19 Feb 2008 @ 4:36pm

Not so new
This sort of thing has recently happened in New Zealand.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
PaulT (profile), 20 Feb 2008 @ 12:16am

Presumed innocent?
The biggest problem I have with the tabloid-led press in the UK is the utter lack of commitment to the idea of the presumption of innocence. Many people have a kind of "trial by media" where in the months leading up to a trial, a person is splashed all over the front page essentially talking about them as if they were guilty.

It's not so much the idea that a jury could be influenced that bothers me, it's the fact that so many people have been dragged through the dirt when in fact, according to the eventual verdict, they are innocent of any crime. Yet, the pressure of the media coverage often breaks up families and relationship in the time when the accused needs them the most.

I'm not normally a fan of government intervention in free speech, but delaying such coverage until after the verdict is quite beneficial to all, IMHO.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Sean, 20 Feb 2008 @ 1:38am

Lord Chancellor
He's the guy in charge of the courts and judges, not the guy in charge of the legal system, and he technically outranks the Prime Minister.

The new Justice Ministry is in charge of the legal system.

You could have looked it up in Wikipedia...
[ link to this | view in thread ]
JustMatt, 20 Feb 2008 @ 5:41am

So what is the standard?
Given that the statute of limitations is seven years for some crimes in the US should there be a ban for the full seven years? Given that some court cases can take a year or two should there be a ban for another couple of years?

Finally, and this is a personal opinion, I don't trust lawyers (on either side of the aisle) and believe that many of them will intentionally suppress evidence if they think it helps their client. I want the news media to tell me about these types of things.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 20 Feb 2008 @ 10:13am

I have a feeling that an article in USA Today or the Guardian would reach and influence a few more people than an article posted on a blog.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Robert, 21 Feb 2008 @ 10:19am

How about making it a crime for journalists to be unobjective?
[ link to this | view in thread ]