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."
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
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."
"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....
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
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
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!!!!
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.
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.