Comments:UK's most-read papers found to be in contempt of court

From Wikinews, the free news source you can write!
Jump to: navigation, search

Back to article

Wikinews commentary.svg

This page is for commentary on the news. If you wish to point out a problem in the article (e.g. factual error, etc), please use its regular collaboration page instead. Comments on this page do not need to adhere to the Neutral Point of View policy. Please remain on topic and avoid offensive or inflammatory comments where possible. Try thought-provoking, insightful, or controversial. Civil discussion and polite sparring make our comments pages a fun and friendly place. Please think of this when posting.

Use the "Start a new discussion" button just below to start a new discussion. If the button isn't there, wait a few seconds and click this link: Refresh.

In the U.S., such a prosecution would be clearly unconstitutional, due to the First Amendment. As far as I know, the U.S. concept of contempt of court applies only to people with direct involvement of some sort in a case, such as parties to the case, their attorneys, people present in the courtroom for some reason, and those who have received and disobeyed direct court orders. There isn't any sort of blanket contempt rule applying to random third-parties such as journalists. Trying to keep tight control of what is published on the Internet seems to be a losing cause, something that even dictators like those in China and Libya have only partial success at. Dtobias (talk) 22:49, 6 March 2011 (UTC)

FYI, China is not a dictatorship although its legal system - which has only started developing for a few decades - has room for improvement. Kayau (talk · contribs) 16:00, 7 March 2011 (UTC)
Yeah in the UK (and the rest of Europe incidently) the rights of free speech come with certain responsibilities, and these responsibilities are felt to be greater when the author knows he is writing to a wide audience who consider him to be a reliable source, so I don't think the same ruling would have been made if the defendant was say a blogger. What is interesting is that if the Mail and Sun do believe free speech is an issue here they will have to pursue it using the Human Rights Act and European Convention on Human Rights and since theyve spent the last ten years aggressively campaigning against both I have a feeling a U-turn might be coming up which may actually be visible from space Bob House 884 (talk) 20:14, 7 March 2011 (UTC)
Start a new discussion


Thread titleRepliesLast modified
query107:41, 14 March 2011
Comments from feedback form - "Where is the photograph in que..."012:59, 10 March 2011

Will the criminal be 'unconvicted' if the tabloids are found guilty? Kayau (talk · contribs) 16:02, 7 March 2011 (UTC)

16:02, 7 March 2011

Um..... no. Why would he be? There's no reason to believe the jury saw it.

07:41, 14 March 2011

Comments from feedback form - "Where is the photograph in que..."

Where is the photograph in question?

12:59, 10 March 2011