Also, actually think this through, would you, assuming everything you say is true. All those articles biased against Letby in the press weren’t biased because of court reporting restrictions, but because the press saw it as good business to demonise her. Removing the reporting restrictions removes them for everyone: you don’t just get Ra…
Also, actually think this through, would you, assuming everything you say is true. All those articles biased against Letby in the press weren’t biased because of court reporting restrictions, but because the press saw it as good business to demonise her. Removing the reporting restrictions removes them for everyone: you don’t just get Rachel Aviv riding in on a white horse to silence everyone with the truth, you get every single tabloid free to rake up all the muck they can find with their own ‘independent investigation’ and then spray it across the headlines. Is this making the problem you identify better, or worse?
To be fair, the idea of reporting restrictions seems reasonable. I would argue that they aren't as beneficial as they seem and for that reason shouldn't weigh against the public good of press freedom and access to information. In this specific case, the media has already painted an unremittingly damning image of Letby. Any jury has already been prejudiced, realistically the only effect of new reporting could be to make it less negative (that turned out to be true). One could think of the opposite scenario, but that just argues that the net cost or benefit of retrictions are zero. Not worth the cost to the public right to information. There will be shady tabloids, there will also be investigative journalism that can do nothing but aid the course of justice.
And in an age of nearly unlimited access to information anywhere in the world, the idea of blocking all information is a fiction. I'd rather have all of the press reporting, not just a selection of foreign sources. Let the crown sequester the jury if they think it's so important rather than try to quarantine the rest of the world.
But it’s not really “quarantine” of information, reporting of active trials still occurs, it’s that the reporting has to be limited to what’s being discussed in court in front of the jury. There’s sometimes additional reporting restrictions enforced during cases - for example if a defendant is to stand trial again for a different crime. And the press is entitled to appeal against reporting restrictions during a court case.
I’m a former newspaper reporter - to get a journalism qualification in the UK you need to know the law around court reporting - and how to appeal against it. In the main I support our contempt of court laws, generally the public’s desire for tittle tattle doesn’t override the need for a fair justice system.
Are you calling the New Yorker piece "tittle tattle"? That's my point, it's not just tabloids, it's also important journalism, and the timely communication of information often matters. The contribution to society of press freedom isn't just titillation.
It’s rather hard to draft reporting restrictions that only apply to ‘tittle tattle’ and not good, responsible journalism, and all the benefits of press freedom can be enjoyed in full once the trial is over: the only demand of the reporting restrictions is that while the case is being decided in court, the press stick to reporting the case put before the jury, rather than effectively trying to decide the case themselves in the public media. It’s not a particularly onerous requirement, it certainly hasn’t suppressed scrutiny of the Letby case, and again I think if the rules were laxer the results would be *far* worse for Letby than the current system.
But that’s exactly my issue, the tabloid muckraking was all allowed prior to the trial, and it was mostly more good-faith stuff that actually got squashed by the reporting restrictions.
Show me an example of the tabloid muck-raking you mean, then, because they’re strictly bound by the same rules as Rachel Aviv. Which is why they sensationalise the case as has been put before the jury, whereas Aviv effectively constructed her own epic case for the defence outside of court procedure and rules. The tabloids are certainly not allowed to consult medical experts to provide interpretations of evidence the way Aviv did.
The New Yorker article mentions that multiple outlets published reporting on the case right after she was arrested and again after she was released on bail. These included quotes from e.g. other patients from Countess. Perhaps it was wrong of me to call these muckraking, but it’s unclear to me why these *wouldn’t* be prejudicial to a possible jury pool while Aviv’s article *was*.
Fortunately we have a body of law clearly setting out what you can and can’t report about in an ongoing trial, and if the New Yorker had cared about following it it could have done everything the tabloids are allowed to. Instead it chose to ignore British law and publish material which would be considered prejudicial while the trial was ongoing, and so was banned in Britain, only for the duration of the trial. Even as a pretty strident free speech defender I think this is reasonable.
If your body of law says reporting about a case before the first trial is not prejudicial, but reporting about the case after the first trial before a retrial of one of the counts in the first trial IS prejudicial, then your body of law is an ass.
Also the NY print edition with the article was not apparently suppressed, not to mention the trivial ability to access outside reporting via VPN and Reddit, so the enforcement is impotent and arbitrary anyway.
Presuming US reporters should follow UK law for an American publication is the height of arrogance, let alone actually threatening journalists outside your jurisdiction. Perhaps those resources could be better used catching child rapists and trying alleged baby murderers in less than a decade.
This whole thread is weird UK seething about “how dare Jesse question our glorious UK legal system”, I figured a bit of tongue-partially-in-cheek turnabout was fair play.
EDIT: and I acknowledge I’m being a bit unfair to you by conflating you with the more blatantly sneery UK posters elsewhere in this episode thread.
Also, actually think this through, would you, assuming everything you say is true. All those articles biased against Letby in the press weren’t biased because of court reporting restrictions, but because the press saw it as good business to demonise her. Removing the reporting restrictions removes them for everyone: you don’t just get Rachel Aviv riding in on a white horse to silence everyone with the truth, you get every single tabloid free to rake up all the muck they can find with their own ‘independent investigation’ and then spray it across the headlines. Is this making the problem you identify better, or worse?
To be fair, the idea of reporting restrictions seems reasonable. I would argue that they aren't as beneficial as they seem and for that reason shouldn't weigh against the public good of press freedom and access to information. In this specific case, the media has already painted an unremittingly damning image of Letby. Any jury has already been prejudiced, realistically the only effect of new reporting could be to make it less negative (that turned out to be true). One could think of the opposite scenario, but that just argues that the net cost or benefit of retrictions are zero. Not worth the cost to the public right to information. There will be shady tabloids, there will also be investigative journalism that can do nothing but aid the course of justice.
And in an age of nearly unlimited access to information anywhere in the world, the idea of blocking all information is a fiction. I'd rather have all of the press reporting, not just a selection of foreign sources. Let the crown sequester the jury if they think it's so important rather than try to quarantine the rest of the world.
But it’s not really “quarantine” of information, reporting of active trials still occurs, it’s that the reporting has to be limited to what’s being discussed in court in front of the jury. There’s sometimes additional reporting restrictions enforced during cases - for example if a defendant is to stand trial again for a different crime. And the press is entitled to appeal against reporting restrictions during a court case.
I’m a former newspaper reporter - to get a journalism qualification in the UK you need to know the law around court reporting - and how to appeal against it. In the main I support our contempt of court laws, generally the public’s desire for tittle tattle doesn’t override the need for a fair justice system.
Are you calling the New Yorker piece "tittle tattle"? That's my point, it's not just tabloids, it's also important journalism, and the timely communication of information often matters. The contribution to society of press freedom isn't just titillation.
It’s rather hard to draft reporting restrictions that only apply to ‘tittle tattle’ and not good, responsible journalism, and all the benefits of press freedom can be enjoyed in full once the trial is over: the only demand of the reporting restrictions is that while the case is being decided in court, the press stick to reporting the case put before the jury, rather than effectively trying to decide the case themselves in the public media. It’s not a particularly onerous requirement, it certainly hasn’t suppressed scrutiny of the Letby case, and again I think if the rules were laxer the results would be *far* worse for Letby than the current system.
But that’s exactly my issue, the tabloid muckraking was all allowed prior to the trial, and it was mostly more good-faith stuff that actually got squashed by the reporting restrictions.
Show me an example of the tabloid muck-raking you mean, then, because they’re strictly bound by the same rules as Rachel Aviv. Which is why they sensationalise the case as has been put before the jury, whereas Aviv effectively constructed her own epic case for the defence outside of court procedure and rules. The tabloids are certainly not allowed to consult medical experts to provide interpretations of evidence the way Aviv did.
The New Yorker article mentions that multiple outlets published reporting on the case right after she was arrested and again after she was released on bail. These included quotes from e.g. other patients from Countess. Perhaps it was wrong of me to call these muckraking, but it’s unclear to me why these *wouldn’t* be prejudicial to a possible jury pool while Aviv’s article *was*.
Fortunately we have a body of law clearly setting out what you can and can’t report about in an ongoing trial, and if the New Yorker had cared about following it it could have done everything the tabloids are allowed to. Instead it chose to ignore British law and publish material which would be considered prejudicial while the trial was ongoing, and so was banned in Britain, only for the duration of the trial. Even as a pretty strident free speech defender I think this is reasonable.
If your body of law says reporting about a case before the first trial is not prejudicial, but reporting about the case after the first trial before a retrial of one of the counts in the first trial IS prejudicial, then your body of law is an ass.
Also the NY print edition with the article was not apparently suppressed, not to mention the trivial ability to access outside reporting via VPN and Reddit, so the enforcement is impotent and arbitrary anyway.
Presuming US reporters should follow UK law for an American publication is the height of arrogance, let alone actually threatening journalists outside your jurisdiction. Perhaps those resources could be better used catching child rapists and trying alleged baby murderers in less than a decade.
I’ve engaged in good faith so far but this level of weird American seething doesn’t really merit more than a chuckle, tbh.
This whole thread is weird UK seething about “how dare Jesse question our glorious UK legal system”, I figured a bit of tongue-partially-in-cheek turnabout was fair play.
EDIT: and I acknowledge I’m being a bit unfair to you by conflating you with the more blatantly sneery UK posters elsewhere in this episode thread.