I think it should be pointed out that the UK is not the US. If the British want to live in a country where they way the right to a fair trail more heavily than the right to free speech, it is their choice. In some respects, this isn’t much different than gag orders in the US, except it is obviously much broader reaching and less discriminating.
The question isn’t whether the British want to live by their own rules, it’s whether the world media’s reaction to the legal quandries posed by the Internet should be to submit to whatever restrictive regimes are imposed by the rules of other countries. Is the New York Times also going to start censoring itself with regard to stories about Falun Gong, too, making them off-limits to Chinese readers? I realize that legally, in the attempt to avoid litigation, this may have been the most logical course for them, but I don’t like the precedent it sets, I don’t like it one bit.
I think the Times reaction might stem from the strange libel laws the Brits have. Even books sold only in the US have resulted in judgements against the authors and publishers on the basis some books or publications can and have made their way into the UK.
In Canada during the Gomery inquiry (about Liberal Party corruption), the commissiion was able to exercise prior restraint on the press. The Times observed it studiously, even after a US blogger, Ed Morrissey (Captain’s Quarters) published the testimony. The Times covered the story of the blog’s revelations, but avoided any mention of the banned content.
It’s interesting that the Times is totally observant of press restraint laws in Canada and the UK, yet is most ready to violate US laws, especially when it wants to damage the administration. They know the Canadians will and the Brits might make it very expensive if they flaunt their laws.
Under US Law, in theory, one is innocent until proven guilty … in practice, it is all-too-common for the media to publish details on Page 1, above the fold, in letters clearly legible across a room, which seem to judge-as-guilty whomever they wish to publish as guilty … subsequently, when that person turns out to have been innocent all along, there may not even be a retraction published on the next to last page of the front section in micro-dot-sized font …
Under British Law, things which are sub judice are “NOT to be publicly discussed” until the whole thing has been judged …
Which system is better ? Not sure - except that I find the British system to be much more respectful of the whole “innocent until proven guilty” concept …
Mad Max - as far as the US Right to Free Speech, in the US under US Law, what happens to you when you go to a juror currently seated for a criminal case, and you start discussing that case with that juror ? And then the judge or either lawyer - Plaintiff’s or Defendant’s - finds out ?
Corky - that’s also a major difference in the application of other laws, such as gun laws … I don’t remember where I read it a while back, but somewhere it said that the US has more gun-control laws than Great Britain does … Great Britain, however, tends to apply those gun laws which are on the books, and actually prosecutes people who use guns while committing crimes and then sentences them, too …
You may not like it one bit, but Britain is a sovereign state with its own laws. I think the NY Times has a fiduciary responsibility to its shareholders not to knowingly walk into a lawsuit.
August 30th, 2006 at 8:17:20 pm
Agree. Lame.
August 30th, 2006 at 9:15:53 pm
I think it should be pointed out that the UK is not the US. If the British want to live in a country where they way the right to a fair trail more heavily than the right to free speech, it is their choice. In some respects, this isn’t much different than gag orders in the US, except it is obviously much broader reaching and less discriminating.
August 30th, 2006 at 9:28:07 pm
The question isn’t whether the British want to live by their own rules, it’s whether the world media’s reaction to the legal quandries posed by the Internet should be to submit to whatever restrictive regimes are imposed by the rules of other countries. Is the New York Times also going to start censoring itself with regard to stories about Falun Gong, too, making them off-limits to Chinese readers? I realize that legally, in the attempt to avoid litigation, this may have been the most logical course for them, but I don’t like the precedent it sets, I don’t like it one bit.
August 30th, 2006 at 9:49:34 pm
I think the Times reaction might stem from the strange libel laws the Brits have. Even books sold only in the US have resulted in judgements against the authors and publishers on the basis some books or publications can and have made their way into the UK.
In Canada during the Gomery inquiry (about Liberal Party corruption), the commissiion was able to exercise prior restraint on the press. The Times observed it studiously, even after a US blogger, Ed Morrissey (Captain’s Quarters) published the testimony. The Times covered the story of the blog’s revelations, but avoided any mention of the banned content.
It’s interesting that the Times is totally observant of press restraint laws in Canada and the UK, yet is most ready to violate US laws, especially when it wants to damage the administration. They know the Canadians will and the Brits might make it very expensive if they flaunt their laws.
August 30th, 2006 at 9:57:37 pm
Brendan - you may want to consider this aspect …
Under US Law, in theory, one is innocent until proven guilty … in practice, it is all-too-common for the media to publish details on Page 1, above the fold, in letters clearly legible across a room, which seem to judge-as-guilty whomever they wish to publish as guilty … subsequently, when that person turns out to have been innocent all along, there may not even be a retraction published on the next to last page of the front section in micro-dot-sized font …
Under British Law, things which are sub judice are “NOT to be publicly discussed” until the whole thing has been judged …
Which system is better ? Not sure - except that I find the British system to be much more respectful of the whole “innocent until proven guilty” concept …
Mad Max - as far as the US Right to Free Speech, in the US under US Law, what happens to you when you go to a juror currently seated for a criminal case, and you start discussing that case with that juror ? And then the judge or either lawyer - Plaintiff’s or Defendant’s - finds out ?
August 30th, 2006 at 10:01:23 pm
Corky - that’s also a major difference in the application of other laws, such as gun laws … I don’t remember where I read it a while back, but somewhere it said that the US has more gun-control laws than Great Britain does … Great Britain, however, tends to apply those gun laws which are on the books, and actually prosecutes people who use guns while committing crimes and then sentences them, too …
August 31st, 2006 at 4:15:08 am
Thats because Britain doesn’t have a powerful gun lobby that hamstrings any gun control laws that do get passed…
August 31st, 2006 at 10:59:10 am
Brendan-
You may not like it one bit, but Britain is a sovereign state with its own laws. I think the NY Times has a fiduciary responsibility to its shareholders not to knowingly walk into a lawsuit.
August 31st, 2006 at 3:16:08 pm
Oh - I gotta hear this …
Why, David - and just how does the US Gun Lobby work its magic that “hamstrings any gun control laws that do get passed” ?
Do they buy off the judges ? Or do they buy off the DAs ? Or how do they do it ?