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 n…
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.
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.