Slashdot Mirror
Publication Bans In A Borderless World
slantyyz writes "Wired has a story on a publication ban imposed by a Canadian court on the Canadian media in a well-publicized serial murder case. Now this ban doesn't apply to foreign media per se, but given the borderless nature of the Internet, it leads one to wonder about the efficacy of such a ban. Canadians clearly have access to the American media channels online. The last major publication ban occurred in the early nineties with another Canadian serial murder case involving Paul Bernardo. It was effective to the point that the Internet was still a young medium, but even then, there were a few newsgroups created that were dedicated to spreading rumours about the ongoing trial."
News is what you get from disinerested third parties who are free to investigate and report news.
Rumors is what you get when disinterested third parties are not alowed to investigate or report news.
Rumors are not substitutes for news. They can never be trusted and are always a sign of tyranical control. When rumors are more reliable than news, no one can be sure of anything. That's why the US has a first amendment. It's degradation is a sign of enslavement.
DMCA, Hollings, Palladium. What might have sounded like paranoia is now common sense.
Perhaps they're hoping that the media will just respect the wishes of the court, rather than trying to force the issue through technology?
Note: there is no ban on the public -being- there, so this isn't a case of a closed trial. This isn't a ban on people talking about it -- just a ban on media publication. The rules are in place simply to give a fair trial.
In Canada, a criminal suspect's right to a fair, untainted trial trumps the right of the media to descend upon the courtroom like a pack of rabid wolves. This is a murder trial, not public entertainment (no matter what the media would have you believe).
In any field, find the strangest thing and then explore it. -John Archibald Wheeler
Ban the foreign press, make all spectators sign a legally binding gag order. Make sure these contracts are binding across borders.
In a more perfect world, journalists would respect the wishes of the court and it would be a non issue.
There's a reason why camera's aren't allowed in a Canadian court, and judges issue publication bans. It taints the outcome of the trial. Now of course journalists would have you believe that "freedom of the press" trumps the "right to a fair trial", but it's simply not true.
The Bernardo case hits close to home, one of the girls bodies was dumped not more than about 10k from where I lived at the time. (I can't remember if it was Leslie Mohaffe or Kristen French) I remember the paranoia, the searching for the cream-colored Camaro, something I haven't experience again until just recently with the DC area sniper's spree ('cuz I live near DC now).
Anyways, there really was enough media exposure on the trial. I followed it in the paper and on the news every day.
Paul and his wife Karla Homolka videotaped their rape, torture and murder of the girls. These tapes were shown in court, and the judge ruled that the contents of the tapes were never to leave the courtroom. The reasons were obvious enough. The public is not served at all by details about how these girls were raped, humiliated and murdered.
One of the American TV tabloids of the time (A Current Affair?) aired excruciating details in one of their little shock pieces. It frankly pissed a lot of people off. There was no reason to do it, except to once again exploit the victims for a few ratings points.
Anyways, I digress.
Keeping the press out of the courtroom is a good idea, IMO. The 3 ring circus' that plays out in big American trials is an absolute joke. I'm absolutely convinced OJ would have been convicted in a Canadian court.
I don't need no instructions to know how to rock!!!!
I have no idea why the general public and indeed, the media have such a blatant misunderstanding of judicial publication ban orders. The ban is a ban on media reporting while the trial is in progress and possibly until such time as the appeals are exhausted. The complete, entire purpose of the ban is to minimize contamination of the jury pool.
Guess what happens when the trial is over?
That's right - you're allowed to report on the trial! The transcripts are made public! Hell, CBC even made a TV movie out of the case. Since the media has lost it's chance to unfairly bias the public at this point, they rarely bother to report on it after the fact though.
So take your sacrimonious attitude and apply it to those first generation Americans who are being held in US prisons without charges or trial just for registering the country of their birth.
In my opinion, the situation here in the "land of Freedom" is worse. Banning pre-trial publicity is one thing. Preventing a defendant from using his chosen defense is another and far worse thing.
A sad example is the case of the late author Peter McWilliams, who was charged with conspiracy to grow marijuana. He was charged under federal statutes, because the state of California had legalized the growing of marijuana for medical purposes. McWilliams was therefore under the impression that he would be permitted to do so. His publishing company gave an advance to another medical marijuana activist, for the purpose of writing a book on the subject of medical marijuana. The activist rented a big house and filled it with different strains of marijuana, ostensibly to experiment with different strains and their efficacy for different conditions. Though McWilliams himself did not grow any pot, he was arrested and indicted for conspiracy to manufacture a controlled substance, because of the advance.
Now the story becomes pretty ugly. The prosecutors petitioned the court to prohibit McWilliams from mentioning anything about medical uses of marijuana, and the judge granted the motion. This effectively prevented McWilliams from making any defense at all. Since he was a medical marijuana user himself (he had AIDS and cancer) the injustice of this seems even more unAmerican.
Because he was prevented from offering the only defense he had, he was obliged to accept a plea bargain, and he was hoping to get house arrest. Though at the time of his indictment, he was in fairly good shape, with a low viral load and his cancer in remission, he was denied the use of marijuana as a condition of his bail (he was frequently tested). The medication that had kept him alive caused severe nausea, which he had treated by smoking pot. He was able to make bail (being such a dangerous criminal) only because his mother and other family put up their houses to guarantee his adherence to the terms of his bail. He was told that his mother would lose her house if he were to be caught smoking pot, so he abstained. His condition rapidly deteriorated, and he died before he received his sentence. Readers of this forum might find McWilliams' work of interest because he adhered to the free information ethic-- making his books available online for free. My favorite book of his is Ain't Nobody's Business If You Do.
History seems to be repeating itself. Long-time drug policy activist Ed Rosenthal has been indicted on similar charges and like McWilliams, has been informed that he will also not be allowed to mention medical marijuana in his defense.
Contrast this ferocious adherence to the official line here in America with a similar situation in Canada. There a judge ruled that the blanket prohibition of marijuana is illegal because it made no provision for those who felt they had a medical need for the drug.
Much of this dismal contrast in the fairness of the two country's judicial proceeding derives from America's size. It has become too big for democracy; the government's power is unchallengeable. In Canada, it's still possible for the people to influence their government.
It is not "about a British Columbian pig farmer who murdered...".
It is about a British Columbian pig farmer who *IS ACCUSED* of murdering...
There's a big difference between the two statements, the article you linked used the correct one, you ignored the assumption of innocence, which is probably the most important concept in a fair justice system.
Richard Jewell brought it all on himself by committing a very suspicious crime in regards to the bombing incident: he stole evidence from the crime scene and hid it in his house. He willingly chose to commit criminal activity in regards to the case; no wonder he opened himself up to worse suspicion.
Excuse me, this is the first I've ever heard about this. What did he steal then? How did the stealing of evidence relate to him being the bomber? The press latched onto Jewell because the police leaked he was a suspect. Jewell has won almost every lawsuit he has filed against the media. But think of how a mere $500k judgement against NBC compares to the hundreds of millions up for game in the TV News business.
Really, it is so it shouldn't be. There is nothing the government should do that it should keep hidden from us. If you don't like it, don't read it. If the judiciary does not like what a newspaper prints, it does not have to buy it.
Here you raise a straw man, this isn't something the government is doing on its own, its doing something to someone. Its not the governments rights that are being protected by a publication ban it is that person's. Its not your rights that are being violated, its you being inconvienced to hear the details later.
In a republic, the rights of the individual outweigh the rights of the public. That is why YOUR tax returns are secret and why people fight for privacy in their dealings with the government. The investigation of a crime is not a public event until the trial!
Even then, in many cases regarding minors, the happenings at trial are kept secret to protect those accused.
There is a fine line between the protection you as a citizen get by your trial being public and from the harm that is caused by it. If the press wasn't so keen to publish the acusations and not the results of trial, AND if the public wasn't soo facinated by gossip, then there wouldn't need to be any publication bans. But, the public is fancinated, the media feeds it and feeds from it, but the publics WANT does not make it a Public RIGHT.
What Canada is doing is simply favouring the rights of the individual over the WANTS of the public. The public is gaining nothing in learning the juicy tidbits now rather then later, but to the person who's being acused that time frame is vital.
I think you are wrong. Let me throw a scenaria at you:
Your child (say 14 years old) was on an airplane that crashed. The media comes to tell you. There isn't just one person, there are 50, with big lights, microphones, and 10 reporters yelling questions at you as soon as you open the door. When you finally understand that your child is dead, they start badering you with questions like "How does it feel to lose your child?", "Who do you think is to blame?", "Are you going to sue the airline?".
Trust me, I know which one is better.
I am not a resource! I am a free man!