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."
The bottom line is that the internet thrives on freedom and has come to a point where it's nearly impossible to restrict. That's a good thing, in my opinion.
Blame canada!!! ...
(sorry that just blurted out)
anime+manga together at last.. in real time.
I live in Israel and we had a similiar case. About half a year ago there was a terrorist attack on a unit of soldiers and the heads of state (or some other decision maker) decdied that no one is allowed to know any details of the case so that the families of the dead wouldn't find out before the official notice was made. Although people tried to spread the news using the Internet (because the TV networks and radio channeled only kept repeating "At this stage we are not allowed to disclose any more information") but what happened is that the big news sites were contacted by the goverment and kept everything queit and concurrently the Israeil Inteligence Agencies "Quited Down" various small sites and public news site or forums that tried to publish details. Although never officialy admitted the Israeli Intelligence just DOSed a few servers to keep everything quite. So the question in how important is it that the information be kept secret
God made the natural numbers; all else is the work of man - Kronecker
Rule number one: don't make assumptions! Last time I was on the phone with cafepress.com (who still haven't gotten my 2-month-old order delivered) I was asked, "You guys have a postal system, right?"
Heh. Just cause it's a true story, don't getcher back up.
Wah!
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.
are there any studies that can claim to show that pre-trial publicity can actually bias a jury one way or another? Or is the belief that it (pre-trial publicity) may impinge on someone's "right to a fair trial" based solely on principle and reason rather than evidence? (Not that there's anything wrong with that.)
"And this is my boy, Sherman. Speak, Sherman." "Hello." "Good boy."
I remember back when the Bernardo case was going on, people were making trips into the US to get Wired magazine.
It was banned in Canada because it talked about the publication ban, and just happened to mention that one of the banned pieces of information was that homolka pled guilty.
It was quite funny, customs set a limit on the number of copies of Wired you could bring across the border. They generally treated it as a controlled substance.
Wired probably sold more copies to Canadians that month than any other time before then, which made the whole ban ineffective. I had no trouble getting my hands an a copy from a 'dealer' at school
Jason
ProfQuotes
"Wow, did you know there is a WHOLE country just north of us?"
Considering I have to go to the NPR/BBC to get any sort of non-corporate news, I think that Canada is safe from learning anything about themselves from the U.S. media.
China on the other hand....
Being a Canadian citizen I feel that we are within our rights to order a media ban on publication within this country. While it is obvious we can't enforce that ban on the Internet, we can easily ban foreign media from the courtroom if they flaunt our request to not print.
Having said that, I think the media ban in and of itself is not feasable. It is designed to avoid polluting the jury pool (something that may have been done by post-arrest police leaks in the beltway sniper case), but an information vacuum is filled with rumour. I remember being in first year university where some of my floormates were from the St. Catherines area (southern Ontario), who knew someone, who knew someone who was a cop who viewed the Bernardo tapes. The crap that people heard through the 'broken telephone' was a lot worse than what turned out to be the case (although the reality was god-awful in its own right). The jury pool for Bernardo was destroyed anyway by everyone nattering about rumours, so you have to ask if it was worth it.
just = (My)Opinion.toCents();
I dig the free health care and all, and the lower crime rate too...
Canada just made a misstep here, IMO. It happens.
~D:
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
Yes, you troll, because media bans have no relevant reason whatsoever. These bans exist to prevent media taints on the case. The jurors go to their hotel rooms at night and turn on the TV. And if someone is editorializing the details that were released today, as well as what is to come tomorrow, their decision could be effected.
Ban the jurors from TV and they'll talk to their families. Ban contact with families and you'll soon find yourself under the gun in a huge civil rights case.
So, once again, in short words for you. The media ban protects the jurors. The media ban premits a more-fair outcome. Jeez.
Oh, and I won't even touch that high-horse BS you spouted, I'll just pray it was sarcastic.
This man has a right to a fair trial. "Innocent until proven guilty" is still a way of life here in Canada, unlike in the US media where it's "He's a murderer, string him up". For examples, see Gary Condid.
This is the pre-trial phase, and in order to ensure there is a fair and unbiased populace from which to draw jurors, there is a ban on publication of evidence until trial time. This is quite normal here.
Canada has it's own laws, our Judges don't cave in to American Media. The US media has a choice - don't publish details, or be barred from the court room.
"History doesn't repeat itself, but it does rhyme." Mark Twain
You need to remember that this is NOT the trial, but a preliminary hearing to determine if a trial can take place.
If the judge thinks there is enough evidence, then a trail date is set, jurors are picked and away we go.
The publication ban is to stop the press from polluting the jury pool with evidence that may or may not be permitted during the actual trial, and thus the jurors pre-judge the defendant (may he burn in hell....).
- - - - - - - - - - -
I am a programmer. I am paid to produce syntax not grammar. Deal with it.
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!!!!
Yeah, but only because the Canadians were able to do it first.
This site had posted the original story back on 16 Jan. It's about a British Columbia pig farmer who murdered dozens, maybe more, women and fed them to his pigs. The pork producers are also trying to get the story quashed.
I recall back during the 1997 Federal Elections, there was a small, but valid issue with blacking out election results because of the internet. Because of the timezones, the polls in Ontario, Quebec, Nova Scotia and Newfoundland were closed and estimated while the ones in British Columbia were still open. Without blacking these results out it can cause apathy among voters for the winning party and impetous for potential voters for the losing parties. This is enough to sway the vote to the minority party.
During this election, many of my friends were in IRC channels full of hundreds of people (not enough to sway the vote federally, but it could have effected a riding) on either coast talking about the results. Now with Candians checking American or British papers, it's on a scale not known before.
There are going to be more and more issues like this, but this is what happens when you empower the public in the way that the internet has. I for one will take the freedom the internet has given back to us and fight attempts at clamping down on it, even when i works against a case of individual right such as this, and voter's rights such as the election example given. We've been given somethng we've never had before and taken back a lot of freedom in the last few years. We can let it be pushed back like so many other freedoms we've lost.
-no broken link
CBC has a good article that explains how publication bans work in Canada.
The net isn't perfect, but we can all understand that waiting a month or two until the court case is done isn't going to hurt no one and potentially prevent a mistrial which worse come to shove could hurt somebody (eg.. and acquittal). This is especially the case seeing that the ban is only applicable during the actual trial.
But that's my 2 cents.
There are a few issues at work here that might need explaining before everyone launches off on an isn't-it-terrible-living-behind-the-frozen-curtain kind of tirade.
The court proceedings currently going on in this case is a Preliminary Hearing which is, I believe, kind of like an American Grand Jury trial. Except, Preliminary Hearings are not conducted in secret. In theory anyone can go and watch and reports about them are not normally prohibited from the public. In addition, AFAIK, Canadian jury selection is done with far less scrutiny of jurors than is done in the U.S. so it's harder for lawyers to check each juror to find out whether they are likely to be tainted.
So, in some ways, the judge is just trying to make the best of a situation he's inherited but doesn't have much control over. This is a hugely high-profile case here in our town and he knows that if details of the case are out there, getting an untainted jury who won't be a guarantee of appeal whether the guy is convicted or not is almost impossible.
dcobbler
After all, unlike the USA, Canada is still the british villain...
For another example, look at OJ's absolute joke of a trial. This was the opposite effect. It became the "OJ" show, and everyone - jurors included - couldn't wait for the 'happy ending'.
Does "freedom of the press" trump the "right to a fair and expedient trial"?
That isnt even the issue. The details of the trial are made public, just not while the trial is in session.
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.
The jury has not been chosen yet. It's common practice south of the border to ensure a jury is not tainted by allowing them to read about the trial in newspapers, watch coverage of the trial in the evening news, etc. This is the same thing but applied prior to a jury being chosen to help ensure a fair jury can be selected. It's a sticky situation - the right of the accused to a fair trial vs the right of the press to report to the public. In fact, now that I think of it, I'm pretty sure similar actions have been taken south of the border, though I could be mistaken on this thought. And is this ban effective? Yes. I haven't heard/seen/read anything of substance in the mainstream media and because I'm not too interested in the trial itself, I don't read about it on the Internet. If I was out in B.C. I'd make a pretty good candidate for a jury. Now, had there not been a publication ban I would have been tainted by my inability to avoid hearing about the trial while I read the morning paper, drive with the radio on, watch TV, etc.
"Shut up" often leads to [fierce] conversation.
Try drilling a hole to a wall and write "don't peek thru..." above it. 8)
Rebels.
love slashdot. populate it. use it. abuse it. hate it. kill it. miss it. stop following links, they only kill servers.
So you don't believe in a persons right to a fair trial? What are you, a Nazi?
"History doesn't repeat itself, but it does rhyme." Mark Twain
Where is the thoguht control? The purpose of the publication ban is to stop evidence that may not be allowed during the trial to be made available to potential jurors.
How clueless are you?
Judge David Stone's stern warning to three foreign reporters: Honor the publication ban or risk being barred from the courtroom. So all that is being said is that, if these reporters publish, they can be barred, in Canada, from a Canada courtroom. He's hardly trying to overreach his authority.
I'm an American. I love this country and the freedoms that we used to have.
Thought control?
To properly judge this guy, and to make sure that he receives a fair trial you need a pool of jurors that have not yet made up their minds. Ideally you would want people that have never heard of the person of what he is accused of. That way innocent before proven guilty actually has a chance to work.
Other-wise it is like some other so-called legal systems where heresay and innuendo convicts a person (lynch mobs come to mind).
- - - - - - - - - - -
I am a programmer. I am paid to produce syntax not grammar. Deal with it.
This is typically done in Canada and ensures a fairer trial. I'm often surprised and sickened at the tabloid quality of the "unbiased" american (television) media. Everything turns into a circus. Well, sorry Canadians try to put the right to a fair trial above televison ratings.
After the case is over, we(anyone) will have full access to the details of the case, and the unauthorized bios, tv specials, etc will come flying out with every little sordid detail.
But for now let's let the case be tried without the play-by-play on every freaking media outlet, with their own special little catch phrase, bi-line and "Pig-Man Hooker Serial Killer" graphic.
Yes, it will be hard(impossible) in a borderless internet media world to "ban" this. But at least the internet media is far less in your face than television, ie. it has to be sought out, it wont accidently be overheard by a juror flipping through tv channels. Makes sense to me.
I believe this is actually quite a common problem. The Bulger case in the UK which just two years ago saw the spread of images of the juvenile offenders, even though the boys were clearly minors, being a painful example. But it is not limited to the internet. It is a problem that has always existed. The US Freedom Of Information Act is widely used by journalists from many countries to find out what their own governments are doing in regards to defense spending, international diplomacy, etc, particularly where there is some US component. The UK governement is always having problems with former secret service folk publishing tell-all books down south, in Australia (from which we get the lovely saying: Being economic with the truth. The meaning of which is "a barefaced lie, but only in most of its detail, there may have been some fact, maybe..." and that said by the Queen's representative.)
Given that local people dealing with local issues are rarely influenced by the press 2000 miles away, it is not frequently all that much of a bother, except to people that have something to hide. In court cases where identities of rape victims are publicized, it's certainly hard on the victims, if they or anyone around them finds out. I have to think the average Canadian Juror is not reading the Jo'Burg Times to find out what is happening in the case they are sitting on, though.
"...OJ would have been convicted in a Canadian Court."
OJ would have been convicted in The People's Court.
It wasn't that funny anyway.
~D:
then the public's right to know immediatly.
I am a ex-pat Canadian living in the SF Bay area. One thing that often has irked me is the release of 'facts' in regard to a criminal investigation/case before the accused is put to trial or even arrested. It is often assumed that the public's right to know and the ability of a free press to report is based on the giving the public the 'information' the fastest. Somehow, the press's rush to publicize anything that is found in a criminal trial is deemed more important then the accused right to a fair trial and the freedom from vigililantism that can come from the premature release of 'facts'. Actually given the use of the press by police agencies in the US to 'leak' information regarding an investigation that soils the reputation of the innocent (Richard Jewell), this speed of information disemination actually harms the operation of a free society.
In Canada, it is reasonably assured that the police won't release ANY information regarding an on-going investigation before that information can be presented at trial. So it should be. In Canada, the judiciary often limits what the press can write about only during a limited finite period. Again, so it should be, as long as someone's life is at stake in a proceding, we as a public, can wait for the gossip.
As well, since this example from Canada is in the pre-trial phase a simple US approximization is the Grand Jury, who's proceding ares are often secret forever.
I say to the court, throw out the foriegn correspondants, let the public wait to hear the juicy gossip from the court room! To the people who deam this a infrigment on their rights, wait until you are accused and tried in the press! Ask then where your rights of 'innocent until proven guilty' are and see how much work it is for you to prove your innocence for the rest of your life!
Why oh why do we need to know NOW? Let the officers tell us in their own words what happened when they can be cross examined by the accused!
As the US enforces the 'Patriot Act' and its ilk we will see how prominatly the false accusations will be printed and how hidden the retractments.
Yes, America is land of the free...
As a Canadian, I'm more than happy to face a ban on a Preliminary Hearing if it means a man has a right to a fair trial later.
It is much better than the new American tradition of labeling its own citizens "enemy combatants" and locking them up in solitary confinement indefinitely, without charges, without a lawyer, without a single chance to defend themselves (e.g. Jose Padilla)
What happened to the US? Home of the free my ass.
Well..I am Canadian and this does really bother me. Actually, I'm ashamed. However this one incident does not define freedom Canadian style. This case is about our largest serial killer ever, who is charged with the murder of 15 prostitutes(54 are actually missing), so this is a severe case. We don't however arrest and jail foreign nationals under a copyright law for giving a speech. We also don't make it illegal to tell anyone that we're being investigated by the authorities as is the case with the dive shops under the USA PATRIOT Act. IS that your definition of freedom?
Progress is man's ability to complicate simplicity!
It's is important to remember the judge who ruled, allowing media in to the court did so full well knowing about the internet and the publication violations that occured in the Paul Bernado case. The Media was allowed in anyway, he didn't have to let them in. It would be in the media's best interest to temper their desire to publish details until such time as the ban is lifted, if ever.
I admit as a Canadian I violated the ban and read publications about Paul Bernado. I read the detailed court proceedings. I wish I never had. Steven King could never have dreamed up the horrors that those 2 girls lived and ultimatly died during. Bernado (and his wife) are truly scum of the earth. That publication ban was in place because the judge (rightly so) beleived the testomony and video footage should never be seen in public. The results would damage the victims familys further. Remebering they had to watch the video of their little girls dying...Something you have no need or right to know/see.
Robert Picton is suspected of killing 55+ women (the count grows higher weekly it seems). 15 have evidence enough to prove to go to trial. The Police have been sifting through dirt looking for small bone fragments, so they can find more victims to charge him with. The victim's families would like to get answers to their loved ones disappearance. They want closure. This can be jeporidised by a tainted jury.
The judge is not trying to be difficult, most people were surprised that the media was allowed at all. But if media breaks that ban, all media will be removed from the court. It is the judge's trial, and the media has no right to be in there. But Pickton does have the right to a fair trial. So the media should be on their best behaviour.
Where is this "land of Freedom to the south" of which you speak?
Ummm Mexico? I guess that's a pretty free an open society. Though the government is slightly more corrupt than most.
Oh I know Puerto Rico? Yea it has to be Puerto Rico you're talking about, right? No DMCA, no Disney sponsored FBI; truly the land of the free! Via con dios, amigo!
I covered this story yesterday (Sunday US-time) in my daily interent commentary and also highlighted the crazy situation taking place in Europe right now.
It seems that German Chancellor Gerhard Schroeder has succeeded in obtaining a injuction from a Hamburg court that forbids a UK newspaper from pubilshing details about an alleged extramarital affair.
The UK newspaper have basically thumbed their nose at the order, as did another UK paper which went a step further and published not just in print but on the Web as well.
My column on this matter can be found here if anyone's interested. Check out today's edition as well: When Microsoft Owns Your ISP
This case has already gotten a tremendous amount of publicity. For those who don't know, awhile back TONS of prostitutes went missing in that B.C. area, and after an investigation, the cops found alot of corpses in this pig farm. After the media circus kicked in, the judge put a ban on it, much like the Bernardo case. However, during the Bernardo case, alot of facts from the case still slipped out, and after the case was complete, everybody knew what happened anyways. On a side note, the Bernardo case is perhaps one of the most bungled cases, outside of the OJ Simpson case...
Defender of Microsoft and Communism!!!
i know that censorship is bad, however there are some cases where it is valid and there is a need for it. one of these prime examples is when someone's right to a fair trial is at stake.
i am canadian and i don't think that it's an overly bad idea to censor like that until the trial starts, they are only banning the media until the trial begins, if i'm not wrong the same thing happened with the oj trial or at least they tried to stop it. i remember it being a big issue cause of all the media coverage that they moved the trial because they couldn't find an impartial jury and the same with the rodney king trial.
don't get me wrong i'd love to see that guy go to jail for a long time, same thing with paul bernado. i know that the crown, the government's lawyers, wants to see him locked up just as much as the rest of us do. they just want to make sure that he gets a fair trial so he can be locked up and the key tossed away, would you really like a person like that to be set free cause of an impartial jury?
as for the reporters, well if they really want they can remove their work visa and they have to leave the country, it's a priviledge for them to be here, not a right.
i know of a few other times the american government censors information. just go through the yro of this website and i'm sure you'll find several articles dealing with it. or how about looking through the jfk files and such, notice the liberal use of the black magic marker on the documents or all the stuff after sept 11.
so don't go jumping down canada's back when they are just trying to get the guy locked up and the key tosses away. we're just going through all the steps our legal process deams neccessary for a fair and impartial trial.
Many Canadien population centers (Toronto, Montreal) are well within range of USA radio and TV broadcasts. I live in Vermont and frequently enjoy the high-quality classic rock programming on CHOM FM and the hilarious BBC comedies on CBC.
-73, de n1ywb
www.n1ywb.com
This man has a right to a fair trial.
Yes, and informing the public of what the government is doing does not get in the way of this at all.
"Innocent until proven guilty" is still a way of life here in Canada, unlike in the US media where it's "He's a murderer, string him up". For examples, see Gary Condid.
The fact that you cannot spell Condit's name is just the first fact you go wrong. While Condit did kill that girl, he did not go to court (so how is this relevant to the subject about court proceedings?)? He got away with it. Far from being strung up, he is living rich at taxpayer expense right now.
It must be a problem with Canadian media, which is much more controlled and censored than in the U.S. Perhaps you believe that Condit was executed last year from a CBC report?
in order to ensure there is a fair and unbiased populace from which to draw jurors, there is a ban on publication of evidence until trial time.
So your populace becomes biased by learning about evidence? No trial is fair when the facts are hidden from those involved.
Thank you for saying this. I was going to say it, but I think you did it better. This whole article is being presented as a sensationalist piece about censorship. It certainly is not the case. Once the trial is over, people will be free to publish what they like. I think this is very important for a fair trial and prevents tainting of the jury.
Some countries allow television cameras in to their courtrooms for live broadcasting of trials. I think this is incredibly wrong as it runs the risk of trial be TV/media. For big cases it becomes very hard to stop public opinion making its way back to the jurors, unless you lock them away for the course of the trial. The public really doesn't need to know right now what is occurring - they won't be harmed by having to wait some time.
Living in Western Canada, not many things piss me off more than seeing Peter Mansbridge come on the TV at 8PM (when the polls close) and the first words out of his mouth are "Welcome Western Canada to our live election coverage, the Liberals are your new majority government"
For those non-Canadians in the crowd, a very large percentage of the Canadian population lives in the East. And they all vote Liberal. So by the time the election-coverage-blackout is lifted in Western Canada, the government has already been elected, and all that is left is fighting for the official opposition.
"Tomorrow's forecast: a few sprinkles of genius with a chance of doom!" - Stewie Griffin
IMO, no. Not ever. The right of the accused comes before my right to know. I want to know, but I can wait.
The details of the trial are made public, just not while the trial is in session
See my answer above. If the details of the pre-trial hearings are made public, it violates the rights of the accused. Furthermore, it may complicate the trial, and this trial has to be by the book. If Canada had the death penalty, this guy would fry. Slowly.
"History doesn't repeat itself, but it does rhyme." Mark Twain
Whether or not the court's action is a good one (and I think there are good arguments for both sides), I can't help but figure that if this were done in the US (against a Canadian or European paper), we'd never hear the end of how the "arrogant US is spreading its laws across the world!" and how "that usurper Bush is taking away the last of our rights!"
The case in question is the Pickton Murder trial.
The purpose of the ban is to be able to get a jury selected for the trial that has not heard any of the evidence presented in the preliminary trial. At least that is the idea anyway, feasible or not.
Now considering that the accused is up on 15+ murder charges ( and probably more to come) it would be common sense for the court system to try and eliminate the possibility for appealling a conviction on the grounds of a contaminated jury pool. As soon as the jury (and alternates ) are selected and setup for the trial, they will have no contact with the media. When that occurs the media will have no restrictions. The jury selection and pre-trial will only last about 2-3 months.
Some free press advocates immediately look at this and shout but the people have a right to know!!! and I agree they do, but the accused also has a right to be judged by an unbiased jury. And on top of that, the tax payers of British Columbia have a right to try and prevent the trial decision from being thrown out, and having to go through the time and expense of doing the trial all over again. Since the trial is projected to last for some 30-36 months, the cost of the bloody thing is going to be enormous.
Now, considering that the press will be in during the trial, and able to publish articles etal. about all the gory details about the trial.... I ask this:
" Is it too much to ask of the media to refrain from publishing details until the jury is selected?"
What has occured thus far with respect to the publication ban, really leaves one with a disgusted view of society. If the journalists showed some integrity they would see that it is in societies best interest to refrain from publishing details until the jury is selected. But that there in is the problem, unto itself. They would need to show integrity.
This lack of integrity was shown right away when the ban was announced, Seatlle media outlets immediately stated that they would ignore the ban. Legally yes they could flat out ignore the ban, morally and ethically...they should have followed the spirit of the ban to the best of their ability... but alas that requires... Integrity... which seems to be in short supply especially in North American society.
I would challenge those readers/comsumers of media stories etc... to support, standup, and cheer when you see a demonstration of Integrity from the media... for journalistic Integrity is a dying art... and needs all the help it can get...
written by
Joe Canadian
you're complaining about a five day old one point moderation?
seriously
--
the strongest word is still the word "free"
"History doesn't repeat itself, but it does rhyme." Mark Twain
Dude,
As a Vancouverite following this case, these are the facts:
According to the judge, the American media can full-well report everything, provided it is in their own country. US news feeds into BC/Canada are blacked-out, but if you pick up feeds from US satellite or over the airwaves, you too can watch the US media report on this trial.
This is simply a means to a fair trial and an untainted jury, not directed at controlling the media, per-se.
The legal and social implications are separate things here.
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.
If any of you out there think this is wrong, you guys are thick-headed. This publication ban is intended to protect what is left of the integrity of this trial. It is bad enough that the public is generally skewed towards the accused even though, through a slim-chance nonetheless, that he might be innocent.The trial should always take precedence over the journalists as the journalists are much more powerful in skewing the public than the lawyers, etc. To say a journalist should have the right to put whatever he/she wants out is completely wrong.
Someone do a Turing test on this... What the hell are you talking about???
The only reference I can find about it is in this paper The Libraries, The Internet, and the University, the chief librarian is quoted:
The public library in Regina, Saskatchewan actually made available
a "reference kit" containing copies of the Washington Post and
other articles. Ken Jensen, head of the Regina Public Library, told me,
"Removing access to material is not what a library should be all about.
If we're going to err, it's our job to err on the side of intellectual
freedom."
I learned a few things back then. I learned that the internet was a new tool to help keep information free and available. With the net being so much more pervasive than it was 10 years ago, the current publication ban is not going to accomplish much. Even more importantly, I learned that the publication ban created misinformation. The rumours and even some of the "information" I found turned out to be completely incorrect when compared with the offical version that was made available after the trial concluded. The crimes were ghastly and horrible but the details of the crimes floating around during the publication ban were even sicker and probably more damaging than the truth was. I also learned how important a library has always been. Slashdot talks a lot about your rights online and intellectual freedom, but libraries have been there for millenia trying to provide and protect your right to information. I was proud to have worked there.
It seems that German Chancellor Gerhard Schroeder has succeeded in obtaining a injuction from a Hamburg court that forbids a UK newspaper from pubilshing details about an alleged extramarital affair.
Although note that the intent of this wasn't to quash publication in the UK - the injunction covers the international edition of the paper, which is normally published across Europe (including Germany).
That, and reminding German papers that Germany privacy laws are substantially stronger than UK privacy laws (Germany has a "right to privacy", the UK doesn't), is probably his point - not to attempt to extend jurisdiction over a UK entity.
Nae bother
The jury system puts a ban upon intelligence and honesty, and a premium upon ignorance, stupidity and perjury. It is a shame that we must continue to use a worthless system because it was good a thousand years ago...I desire to tamper with the jury law. I wish to so alter it as to put a premium on intelligence and character, and close the jury box against idiots, blacklegs, and people who do not read newspapers. But no doubt I shall be defeated--every effort I make to save the country "misses fire."
- Mark Twain Roughing It
There's a very good article in today's New Zealand Herald which provides a legal-professional's point of view.
The writer is a (former?) judge and part-time lecturer in law and IT at the University of Auckland.
That's a pretty ignorant statement to be making my American friend.
First off it's an issue regarding a fair trial and juries. But even aside from that:
You claim that this behavior would make Americans blush? Well, start blushing:
If you bother to check out the Reporters Without Borders worldwide press freedom index you would see that the United States ranks a paltry 17th with a score of 4,75. Meanwhile, Canda ranks 5th (while 1st through 4th are a tie at 0,50 so arguably Canada is 2nd) with a 0,75. And yes, lower is better.
So, just how free is your press in the "land of Freedom to the South"? Apparently not as free as you thought.
"They do not preach that their god will rouse them, a little before the Nuts work loose." Kipling, 'The Sons of Martha'
"in order to ensure there is a fair and unbiased populace from which to draw jurors,"
"Prospective juror 12345, how closely have you followed stories about the accused?"
"What kinds of opinions have you formed of the accused, if any?"
There's also the option of changing venues.
"For examples, see Gary Condid."
Closer to "He deliberately lied to the police in the course of an official investigation (and even admits it), string him up!"
It fills the same need that a Grand Jury does in the U.S. The difference is that relimary hearings are generally open to the public in Canada and grand juries in the U.S. are, by law, strictly secret.
It is not unusual for defense counsel to request a publication ban during pre-trial. Prior to a recent Supreme Court of Canada decision, it had about an even chance of suceeding, and are much more difficult to obtain now. In some cases, the Crown requests a publication ban to protect sources or for their own reasons. Rarely, that I have heard, both Crown and defense request a publication ban. Note, that unlike a grand jury, the publication ban will expire and all that was presented becomes public record.
Having said all that, I think I prefer the grand jury system in the U.S. It protects the accused, insulates potential Jurors from a certain amount of manipulation and generally provides for a fair trial for an accused. Once idicted, then the full and public accounting should come into play.
If Crown or defense attornies are going to battle over publication in the first place, why not make it secret and the trial public? If there is enough evidence to proceed to trial, then a full accounting will occur there.
you know if we talk enough here and post a story every day here about this..then surely the suits will sue cmder taco..is that a good thing?
Don't Tread on OpenSource
This is just about the saddest thing I have ever read about Canada.
I live in Canada, and I thank you for your kind empathy.
There have been hundreds of similar publication bans in Canada, ever since the original Bernardo/Homolka ban. Many of the bans are even more restrictive than the original. A while back the National Post had an article to the effect "There is an ongoing trial in British Columbia, and we aren't even allowed to say what the charge is. In fact, we have already stepped beyond the proscribed ban." Maybe the article was referring to Pickton, I don't know.
We have a seriously corrupt government, placated by a grossly complacent populace. It's been a while since Canada was the "True North, Strong and Free."
I can only be thankful that I live in the land of Freedom to the south.
Be thankful -- and vigilant!
Here are a few more tidbits about Canada -- perhaps you will find them even sadder:
There are currently over a dozen farmers who have done jail time for the same crime: selling wheat without going through their provincial wheat board.
The president of the NCC is facing jail time for running an ad that is critical of the government. Even though the Supreme Court of Alberta has ruled the law unconstitutional, the government is continuing with the prosecution.
If any Canadian liberals/socialists on SlashDot start bleating about "at least we're not like Americans," tell them to stick it up their ass.
Mike van Lammeren
It will challenge your head, your brain, and your mind.
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.
About 10 years ago two boys aged 10 tortured and a 2-year old boy in Liverpool, eventually killing him. The two boys spent the next 8-9 years in a correctional facility. A couple of years ago a judge decided that they no longer were any threat to society, and they should be freed about a year ago.
In order to do so, they and their families were given new identities. A court also ruled that UK media - print or web - would not be allowed to publish anything about what theie new identities - name, place of recidence, anything. The reason is, that if their address was published, there was a strong possibility that someone would try to hurt them - possibly kill them.
Even if the information got into the public domain - say a US or German paper published the name and address of one or both the boys, the UK media would still not be allowed to report on it.
Some people might argue that the two killers shouldn't be set free in the first place, but if they are given a new identity and are set free, something should also be done to protect them. A media ban on reporting their identities is a step in that direction.
There's also the option of changing venues.
You make a very valid point, but you don't understand the magnitude of the issue.
This man is *accused* of being the largest serial killer in Canadian history. We're talking about over a dozen women that the prosecutors have evidence for, and probably over 50 women total, once all the digging is completed. This isn't a case where people in B.C. are interested, but people around here in Ontario are not... this is a story that nearly everyone in Canada knows about.
Now, if he did it, and is convicted, he'll go away for the rest of his life, and after the verdict, the press will be able to report all the facts of the case that the public can stomach.
However, he has the right to a fair trial, and I will stand beside him and fight for that right, even if I was almost certain he was guilty. I may even hate him for it, but I will place myself between him and any American style lynch mob because I maintain that he must be proven guilty in a fair trial before he is punished. In the mean time, I can hold off any morbid curiosity until the end of the trial.
"I have never let my schooling interfere with my education." - Mark Twain
This is a strawman argument. What I describe isn't a "further reduction of rights". What is currently occuring is a traditional compromise between the rights of the media to report the "news", and the rights of the defendant to a fair trial. Take your pick. But I, as a Canadian citizen, would prefer the courts choose the rights of the defendant over the rights of the media.
A further reduction of rights is not the answer. If "the media" is not impartial, what it gives you is not news. If there is no alternate source of information available, we all have a big problem. You are right to notice that news is hard to come by. The answer, however, is not to make it that much harder for those who would present news in an impartial way.
I disagree with you, lets compare the three sets of rights in question here.
a: the right you have to know and the right of the press to report
b: the right the accused has to a fair trial
c: the right the accused has to face the witnesses against him/her
The question is, when should the public learn and what should they learn... basically the public should learn that a person has been arrested for a crime, that protects that person by letting everyone know what is happening to him. Any more info at this point, harms the persons rights.
If the press reports the 'facts' at this time , before the accused has the right to cross examine the source of the facts, how is this respecting the accused right to face his/her accuser? The press does not HAVE to report in any particular style, so therefor the press does not HAVE to present a fair story. Furthermore, what makes that which the press report, a fact? Only during the course of a trial, when both sides can support/attack the authenticity of the evidence can facts emirge. Therefore, what ever the press reports before a trial is rumor and gossip.
Besides your 'recusrive' saying being mearly the use of a 'slippery slope' philosphical flaw, taken that this supression of the publics right is in favor of an individual right, your individual right for freedom against public slavery is STRENGTHENED not weakened in this case. Remember the US, in particular, is a republic where the rights of the individual overway the rights of the public. You may feel that YOUR individual rights are being violated by being denined the latest gossip, but your wrong. Its the publics right that is being suppressed against the right of the individual, and you feeling this supression becasue you, at this time, are a member of the public.
An increased volume of data on the Pickton Crime or any other crime can hardly be considered freedom of information, given the typically tabloid nature of most media outlets.
Thoughtful commentary is rare, sensationalist reporting is rampant. Remember the 5 guys who MAY have entered the states from CANADA.... (did they find them? did they exist? did they come from Canada?)
Typically the media is no longer a revered institution fighting for truth and goodness, revealing evil and badness, so we can improve life etc... It seems to be all about convincing the listener that every juicy tidbit is life threatening.
I for one think that a nation has the right to order its affairs. If France doesn't allow Nazi propaganda, it isn't the responsibility of the "Land of the free and Home of the brave" to circumvent their law in the name of freedom. If Canada wants a publication ban in order to (as far as possible) ensure that a criminal gets a fair trial, and the families aren't badgered excessively by foreign media, I think the media at the very least owe that respect to the people of that country who choose to live with those laws.
So it seems bizarre for the citizens of a foreign nation (U.S.) to take it upon themselves in the name of freedom (try to forget why America needed the civil rights movement) to purposely circumvent the laws of Canada which are established in order to provide the kind of fairness that the law must provide to everyone who is accused of crime.
Go ahead flame away.
No-one here seems to have pointed out the other real risk of making the pre-trial stuff so public:
His lawyers could use it as evidence that he couldn't get a fair trial, and he could be freed based on that, despite any evidence proving his guilt, and that'd truly be a tragedy.
Not really. Check out Russia at 121st place. Or Italy at 40th vs South Africa at 26th.
Mostly it's an issue of developed vs developing: typically developed nations have a better standing than developing... with some disturbing exceptions (ie Italy ranking so low, or Costa Rica beating the United States).
"They do not preach that their god will rouse them, a little before the Nuts work loose." Kipling, 'The Sons of Martha'
Can you Show me where any major news outlet said Gary Condid was guilty?
The Kruger Dunning explains most post on
(and i should add, as a canadian), this publication ban only exists for the preliminary hearing, and exists to try and keep potential jurors unbiassed. Living in Manitoba (as opposed to British Columbia), it doesn't exist on local stations that aren't broadcast in BC. And its an open hearing: anyone in BC can attend, they just can't publish what's going in (at least, details). So its not some secret trial, which is what people are probably all in hysterics about.
So, when the trial starts, everything will be broadcast in OJ-style clarity in every media outlet in canada, and many in the US and around the world. So i'm not at all concerned.
-Michael Roy Some people are like Slinkies. Not really useful, but you can't help smiling when you see one tumble down
As a juror in one of the higher profile cases in Vancouver in the last year (R v. Shane Ertmoed) I think that I have a pretty good understanding of how the Canadian justice system works now.
The publication ban is for the voir-dire and, if the case goes to trial, for the trial as well. As soon as the trial is over, everything that comes out in the voir-dire is fair game. In addition, it's supposed to speed things up in the trial as they don't have to go searching and asking all sorts of questions to get what they want, but can instead say "Do you see this transcript from the voir-dire? Did you say that? Is it true?" instead of having to go through the whole rigaromole again.
The voir-dire is used to go over everything and determine if it is admissible. They will go over the statements, make sure that they are relevant, make sure that they were freely given and such. I suppose it also serves as a trial run so the judge and both sets of lawyers know what the evidence is and what information they expect to come out so they can be prepared.
For instance, in the case I was involved with, the confession was edited to cut out the part where the accused admitted to the cops that he fantasized about young girls. By the time I got home after the verdict was given, that was on the CBC website. As for information that was new and not in the voir-dire, there was an awful lot of complaining by the prosecutors when the accused changed his story between the voir-dire and the actual trial. The judge didn't look too impressed by it either.
Personally, I'd just try to learn as much about the proceedings now as I can so I could disqualify myself from jury duty. Do you really want to sit around for god knows how long and listen to whatever sordid details could possibly come up without being able to leave?
Without blacking these results out it can cause apathy among voters for the winning party and impetous for potential voters for the losing parties
I was thinking it would cause apathy among the losing party and enthusiasm among the winning party. But either way...
There's apparently some kind of psychological force involved in voting that can change your vote depending on your perception of what everyone else is voting. What the hell is that all about? Maybe I'm not wired into the Borg-like human mind? Anybody here willing to admit that this happens to them? Is it something that happens to everyone as long as they don't realize it and then maybe continues to happen even after they realize it?
It's because our voting systems suck. Look into it. You can help fix it.
Rank comments and posts against each other at We-Rank.com
Don't they have a way to request that a foreign media company not publish something? It seems that a polite and explanatory request between two parties not under a common authority (or even under one) would work a heck of a lot better. The old fly and vinegar and honey problem again, eh?
Rank comments and posts against each other at We-Rank.com
Well,
...
... but: everybody knows that a teller machine is watched with a video camara. The tapes are kept for a limited period of time and deleted later.
...
in germany people are not that wild after free speach as in USA probably
We just recently had a fatal incident of "free speach" in the sense that important information was disclosed by the police itself.
We had a case of triple murder in Heidelberg, a medical and his wife and an employee got killed.
Reasons unknown as no real other crime happended and the murder was real cruel.
Anyway, the murderer used the credit card to withdraw money on a automatic teller machine.
This news was disclosed a day, or even some hours, after he did it.
Nothing special so far
So the police wanted to tell the public: we get him soon.
In fact the police telled the murderer: idiot, next time you draw money we will get you!
However: the first video camara was broken or covered with dirt or something. The tape is useless. The murderer did not draw any further moeny as even the news "tape broken" was published some days ago.
The murderer would be incredible stupid to use the credit card again
My conclusion is: it might make sense to not disclose informations during the time where a criminal is not cought.
And my personal top interest is to get him, not to be informed 5 minutes after every step he made that the police was not able to get him so far.
angel'o'sphere
Cost free eBook I read (by iBook/Kobo/Amazon/ObookO/Gutenberg etc.): "The Green Odyssey" by Philip Jose Farmer.
I think it's quite safe to say that the availability of live election results before polls close is a bad thing.
Sure, you can and always will be able to get around the blackout by calling your friends out east; however, it's a lot less prevalent when election results aren't all over the TV.
I'm convinced that CNN lost the election for Gore. Since they predicted a democrat win in FL, people decided to vote for Nader (something about the percentage of votes affecting his funding). So, when CNN conviced people to stop voting democrat in FL, problems started -- and months later, Bush is your president. I'm glad the media doesn't have that power here in Canada.
This allows the CRTC to control commercial content as well. As any Canadian will tell you on Super Bowl Sunday, we don't get to see most of the great US commercials 'cause they're filled with crap Canadian ones.
Of course, those people with grey-market DSS systems and plain old antennas can't be stopped from watching said programs...
IN SOVIET RUSSIA, sig changes you!
Unlike a grand jury, the accused is allowed to have a lawyer present throughout the hearing, and the press and public are allowed to be present.
This is to ensure that the hearing does what it's supposed to do: lay out the Crown's case so that the court can decide if a trieal should be ordered, and allow the accused to know what the evidence is against him.
davecb@spamcop.net
This is sometimes called "jury nullification", as juries in the British tradition explicitly can override the letter of the law.
(The cases are one of Canada's rare brushes with the question of abortion, something which seemed to be a constant subject of discussion and legislation when I lived in Minneapolis)
davecb@spamcop.net
I think that banning anything that might be considered "tainting" to the jury is a good thing.
For innocents (and I don't believe this is the case, considering the XX amount of bodies residing on his property in various locations) it would prevent the jury from being predisposed. For those guilt, when somebody gets nailed in court, it will help prevent some dumbass lawyer from saying "the jury's opinion was tainted, my client didn't get a fair trial."
When you consider all the things that people can get off for... the less ways to screw it up, the better.
The media will be free to report on the trial while it's in progress. The problem here is that this is a pre-trial hearing, and jurors havn't been selected yet.
-- "Is this death or is this Ohio?"
We have a complacent populace because we are better off than most other countries. Complacancy isn't a virtue, but I wouldn't say it's a fatal weakness. And while corruption exists in all countries, including ours, calling the Canadian government "seriously corrupt" is insulting to the thousands of political prisoners being tortured world wide. We all have our shameful cases, but Canada certainly doesn't stand out.
The farmers are in jail to make a point, and refused to pay their fines. The government didn't haul them off. There are arguments for and against the board.
Of course he was charged. Running ads critical of the sitting government, during an election, against the law and advice of the Chief electoral officer is going to get you in trouble.
While I don't mean to paint myself as unsympathetic to either cause (and I do feel for the border farmers) these are people who knowingly brought jail time upon themselves for political purposes. Whether they're right or wrong isn't relevant here - It's just important to know that these people are fighting for what they believe in, knowingly, and that the Canadian government didn't just haul these people away in the middle of the night.
-- "Is this death or is this Ohio?"
The ban does not apply to all information about this case whatsoever.
It only applies to information gleaned from inside of his courtroom. As such it really only applies to (would-be) reporters who step into his courtroom to listen to the hearing -- and then only until the trial is over, or the evidence comes out in full court.
In other words, it's completely legal for me to tell you that Picton is accused of luring women (mostly prostitutes and/or drug users) to his pig farm where they were tortured, (probably) raped, killed and then stuffed through a meat grinder (or something similar), with their ground-up remains possibly being fed to his pigs before being spread around his farm.
I can tell you that, even though I live in Vancouver, because the information I have was gleaned via non-court sources. The minute I step into the courtroom, however, anything that I learn in there is Not-For-Publication. The internet just happens to be one of the methods by which I'm not allowed to publish that information. This would include sending it to my news editor in The States who then puts it onto an Internet site. If I glean information from somebody inside the courtroom, I'm similarly bound to non-disclosure (or my source is, at least, bound to ensure that I don't then publish it).
To give you an idea as to just how personal this 'personal jurisdiction' is: The judge specifically named some reporters in the room at the time who he considered to be problematic.
".... you have been warned"
OS Software is like love: The best way to make it grow is to give it away.
Any satellite dish that is not canadian is illegal; includeing C & KU band. You can be fined and thrown in jail for owning on. The RCMP can seize them on the spot, or demand a grace period to hand over the dish to them.
Nothing but a dictatorship, listen to what we say, watch what we tell you, do what we want. Be a good little sheep now.
Oh and don't forget lawful access, nothing like the goverment monitoring what you do online and keeping records of it. I think that one is atleast still stalled in parliment, but I've been working on bill C32 up and till today...which looks like a lost cause now.
I am canadian, and I fight for the rights that people throw away up here all the time.
Om, nomnomnom...
"There are going to be more and more issues like this, but this is what happens when you empower the public in the way that the internet has"
I agree -- some of this was worked out by Larry Niven, I believe, in a story called "Flash Crowd" which imagines a future where matter transmission booths exist. I think that everyone converges at certain spots because the word has gotten out.
Kinda like slashdotting.
The following poster's point, that eastern Canada has enough votes that the election is decided before the western provinces even close their polls, is different from the idea that instant communication can affect political and legal decisions in progress.
One is a criticism of the Canadian parliamentary system, the second is a challenge to our systems as a whole.
My tuppence.
"Help him! Help the programmer!"
I don't understand why they try to enforce some stupid and unworkable blackout system when there's a simple solution. All they have to do is have the polling stations open for exactly 24 hours and sychronize them.
-
- - You can't take something off the Internet! That's like trying to take pee out of a swimming pool.
Holy crap! He said something mean about the government, and did it during ELECTION SEASON??? LYNCH HIM!!!!!
Maybe that does go on in the US, but I've got a buck for anybody who can defend it on slashdot with a straight face.
And in any case, the information on the web was just plain wrong, they said that a helicopter was downed, a general was killed, etc.
BTW, when something is really secret, publishing it is a crimianl offence (especially when a court has ordered so, and in the cases of the identity of rape victims and underage criminals). The Israeli sites wouldn't risk that.
http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/words-to-avoid.html
It comes from the name of an unrelated tribe - the plishtim (in English - Philistines), those were actually invaders from overseas, the Roman part is true though.
http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/words-to-avoid.html
At least, it need not be an issue...
Whilst publishing details of a case may increase a newspapers circulation, the paper would still have a healthy circulation without it - there are many other reasons for purchasing a paper, ie. general reports for your area, country, etc...
And whilst it depends on the quality of the site / reporting, the first place you tend to go on the internet for news is a provider in your own country, for much the same reasons...
It's kind of the difference between a push / pull mechanism... very few people live in isolation, so a well publicised story in the national media gets 'pushed' on to most of the population...
The internet is much more of a 'pull' scenario - you actively have to go out and find the news story, probably breaking your normal 'routine' to do so... how many people really go to those lengths? And where they do, they probably have too much of an interest in the case to be useful jurors anyway...
Regardless, even with a largely computer-literate population, there simply isn't the same problem of pervasiveness when the story can only be found on foreign news sites.
The case is in the pre-trial phase, and this is where the prosecution presents all their evidence to the judge to determine if there is enough evidence to go to trial. this means only one side of the story is being told. Pickton doesn't get to defend himself at this point. If the media covered this, then the jury pool would be tainted because most people would take this as fact. Simple as that, and i think it's very good.
His lawyers could use it as evidence that he couldn't get a fair trial, and he could be freed based on that, despite any evidence proving his guilt, and that'd truly be a tragedy.
That's true. However, the reason for this is precisely because the lawyer would be correct - if you flood the public with speculation and character descriptions, then it becomes much harder to pick a fair jury.
If he's innocent, and you taint the jury, they're more likely to decide he's guilty just because he's already been tried in the media. If he's guilty, and he gets off on the defense you mention, then that's injustice for the families of the victims.
"I have never let my schooling interfere with my education." - Mark Twain
This may have some impact on the result (I presume to make it closer).
Of course the constant stream of "opinion polls" before the election may mitigate this effect, but it does seem a strange thing to do.
Actually, especially in a multiparty system, like Canada has (there are about 5 viable parties), it is easy for this to occur. A reform may change to a PC if they see reform only getting 2 seats out here, but PC tieing with Liberal. This is one of the problems with "polling."
But I was actually more speaking to people who were sure if they were going to vote, and then seeing a hated party winning by a margin, deciding to vote. On the other side, a person who had decided they were going to vote seeing their party winning may decide they don't need to. Polling also causes this problem.
-no broken link
1. The Influence of Pretrial Publicity on Juror Decision-Making: A Meta-Analysis
At present, 15 studies have been found which test the hypothesis that negative pretrial publicity increases the likelihood of "guilty" verdicts by jurors. In support of the hypothesis, the meta-analysis has uncovered a significantly higher level of guilty verdicts in subjects exposed to negative pretrial publicity, compared to control (no pretrial publicity) subjects, Zma = 11.23, p less than .0001. The overall effect size, r = .17, indicates a small effect across the studies. Additional analyses address moderator variables, such as type of publicity, while discussion focuses on the application of the findings to courtroom decision-making.
Link
2. The Faltering Common Law Jury System: A Psychological Perspective
Moran and Cutler (1991) surveyed potential jurors in order to determine any effects that may be occurring as the result of pre-trial media exposure. Their findings showed that exposure to publicity regarding the crime and the accused was highly correlated to the existence of predetermined conclusions of the defendants guilt. Linz and Pinrod (1992) found that this effect goes far beyond the jurors preconceived beliefs, and that even after unbiased and judicially significant information was provided to the subjects during the trial, jurors who had received greater amounts of media exposure were more prone to convict the accused. Baron and Bryne (1997) suggest that pretrial publicity, which in its most dramatic form shows the suspect being taken away in handcuffs, forces us to form an impression of that suspect. This first impression is most often one of guilt. This first impression in turn influences the acceptance of all subsequent information, possibly leading one to accept questionable information that implies guilt, while rejecting information that favors innocence.
Link
3. Relating Pretrial Publicity, Judicial Instruction, and Thought Suppression With Guilt Ratings
Link
he had pigs but wasn't really a farmer. he was a junk dealer/recycler, had a giant junk yard in Surrey.
great post!
i hadn't heard of this case, but it's an excellent example of drug policy gone wrong.
thx for bringing it to my attention.
I didn't mean that it was wrong to criticize the government during an election, just that the moment it became critical of the government it qualified as election advertising and fell under the scope of the laws governing the election.
That's just the way things work... there are rules in Canada governing election advertising, as in many other countries, governing for example how much you can spend, how close to the election you can air your advertisements (perhaps not on the day of), etc.
Canadian political advertising doesn't feature the same level of participation by 'concerned 3rd parties' that you would find in the United States (eg 'Paid for by concerned citizens for...').
-- "Is this death or is this Ohio?"
Are you free to see those files on the JFK assasinations yet? Or how about area 51?
Land of the free????
We've had similar restrictions for years now. They became a lot more stringent in the last few months with a campaign finance reform act which in effect is an incumbent-protection law. It makes it very difficult to legally spend money or air advertising in the last month of an election cycle, thereby making it incredibly difficult for a challenger to beat an incumbent. (Never underestimate the power of incumbency: A communist prick like Ted Kennedy could win in a conservative state like Colorado if he had the kind of name recognition and legacy status here that he does in Massachusetts.)
I'll be shocked if it passes Constitutional muster. It seems to me that it'll be hard to defend a restriction on who can say what or spend money on saying something about politics, during an election season, in light of a Constitutional provision that "Congress shall make no law...abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press, or the right of the people to peaceably assemble..."
But I'm just a crank who seems to think that free speech is mainly about politics, social commentary, and criticism of the government and its officials, and shouldn't include blackout dates.
Canadian political advertising doesn't feature the same level of participation by 'concerned 3rd parties' that you would find in the United States (eg 'Paid for by concerned citizens for...').
Here, they're often shills for one party or another. For example, I'm a member of both the NRA and the Sierra Club, but I'll be honest: It's uncommon for the former to endorse Democrats (there are exceptions: John Dingell and Tom Foley leap to mind) and even less common for the latter to endorse Republicans (rare enough that I can't think of any examples off the top of my head).
For whatever that tells you. I could articulate what I mean by that, but for the four glasses of cheap Cabernet I had with dinner.