Quote (Goomshill @ 28 May 2018 21:14)
one thing about journalistic freedoms is the discretion of the law. Besides the US having a 1st amendment that would preclude any such law in the first place, one big difference is how we treat people even when they do violate the law, if it could be argued they're just exercising free speech. When Rachel Maddow published Trump's tax returns, she was blatantly violating a section of the privacy law for filings that make it a crime not only to disclose someone else's tax returns, but explicitly makes it illegal to publish them. But nobody ever prosecuted Maddow, and nobody wanted to, and if they had tried, she's win the case on 1st amendment grounds, so it would only help her as a martyr. The US constitution gives such a wide berth to free expression that it extends well past even the text of the law.
Here in this example, Tommy Robinson might have been in violation of the text of the law, which was itself an infringement on free expression. And he may have indeed broken the terms of his parole- thats also a bit in dispute given he was very intentionally attempting to edge around the fringes of what he was allowed. But the law has taken the further step of selectively applying it to him and not other journalists under similar circumstances- because of the content of his speech, lets not pretend otherwise. "At the discretion of the court". That discretion being used to make these trials secret, and that discretion used to lock up this guy, and that same discretion to put a media ban on the case of the guy violating the media ban.
The fact that this is being perpetrated lawfully is what makes it worse, not better.
Its orwellian, and it shows the deficiency of a bongland with no guaranteed freedom of expression.
Bullshit.
As I said earlier - there's a reason why no other journos were hanging around outside the court harassing people going in and coming out.
The discretion is not being used to make the trial secret - people are allowed to go in and record the happenings within the trial (though not with a camera). Once the trial is over the 'secret trial' will be made public. There is also no media blackout on Tommy Robinson's arrest.
https://metro.co.uk/2018/05/28/tommy-robinson-arrested-7583101/http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-5777821/Tommy-Robinson-far-right-supporters-protest-Downing-Street-arrest.htmlhttps://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/home-news/tommy-robinson-protest-downing-street-whitehall-free-latest-arrest-police-a8371616.htmlhttps://www.thesun.co.uk/news/6376643/tommy-robinson-english-defence-league-edl-arrested-facebook-video-grooming-trial/We have freedom of expression and Tommy could easily have voiced his opinion without fucking with the trial. No country has 'guaranteed' freedom of expression. It all depends on how, what, when and where you say the things you want to say. Even in America you can be arrested for inciting violence.
Fuck your first amendment. It isn't a catch all and even many of your own laws contradict it. You can't just say whatever you want, whenever you want. There are restrictions in every country.
First time I've heard 'Bongland' though. Ironic that I discover this term during a period when Big Ben isn't working.