Page 141 of 143 FirstFirst ... 4191131139140141142143 LastLast
Results 1,401 to 1,410 of 1427

Thread: Religion

  1. #1401
    Senior Member G'day Mate's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2014
    Location
    Adelaide
    Posts
    2,703
    There's still another trial to come

  2. #1402
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2014
    Posts
    5,665
    Wow, interesting, gag the entire media of a nation? Impressive.

    Can you google international news? Do internet search engines cooperate with this as well?

  3. #1403
    Senior Member G'day Mate's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2014
    Location
    Adelaide
    Posts
    2,703
    It's called a "superinjunction". Right before it landed the media was explaining that it could happen and that, if it did, they wouldn't even be able to report on the superinjunction. The first two rules of Superinjunction Club are that you don't talk about Superinjunction Club.

    From what I've seen there are some international sites reporting the news, but others (larger ones I presume) are respecting the superinjunction and blocking Australian IPs
    Last edited by G'day Mate; December 12th, 2018 at 04:33 PM.

  4. #1404
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2014
    Location
    Sydney, Australia
    Posts
    1,399
    Quote Originally Posted by Freude am Fahren View Post
    Well, once he's been found guilty the gag order should be lifted, right?
    He has been found guilty, but there is a second trial to come and without the suppression order it could be difficult to find jurors who havent heard of the first case and its result (which would possibly make them biased)
    Its not something they do often and its not perfect - media outside the country can report it, google will return news articles about it. But local media cant (although one papers top story is "why there is a story we cant report on" - without saying enough to identify it, they only report which state it is in)

    There are other times where they cant report, this is often involving victims under 16, so that the victim cant be identified. In some cases that means not identifying the criminal if they are a family member.

  5. #1405
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2014
    Location
    Sydney, Australia
    Posts
    1,399
    I have noticed that a few media sites are reporting that Pell has been dropped by the Pope!
    They cant say why, but it is something that they are allowed to report on.

  6. #1406
    Senior Member G'day Mate's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2014
    Location
    Adelaide
    Posts
    2,703
    Time to remember this little ditty I think ...

    Quote Originally Posted by G'day Mate View Post
    In news from the trial of Cardinal George Pell ... there is none. I'm guessing the the super-injunction sought by prosecutors was successful, meaning that the media cannot even report on the existence of the trial until it is over.

    Unfamiliar? Let Tim Minchin give you some context:


  7. #1407
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2014
    Posts
    4,895
    More on the Pell thing and the gag-order: https://www.washingtonpost.com/lifes...=.d5253842b973

  8. #1408
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2014
    Posts
    5,665
    This is so very interesting to me... because Iím not really sure Iím for or against such media blackouts because of a trial...

    I guess news will eventually resurface, right? So I suppose what Australia is doing is okay...

  9. #1409
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2014
    Location
    Sydney, Australia
    Posts
    1,399
    Definitely a limited time suppression - its not meant to hide the decision permanently, just till the next trial happens.
    The other option is to just screen hundreds of jurors till you find some that havent heard about the first trial - this is just meant to make that process much easier. A minimises the chances of having to abort the trial because he couldnt get a fair hearing.
    Its definitely NOT to protect Pell, its to protect the chance to get him guilty on a second charge.

  10. #1410
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2014
    Posts
    4,895
    Yeah, I definitely understand the impetus. We have the problem here where a lot of times juries are limited to people who basically pay no attention to the world around them - if you look at the news at all, you're not qualified for a jury.

    I'm not entirely sure that attempting to keep the public in the dark (especially given how incredibly hard that is to do now that we can transmit news halfway around the world in seconds) is better, but I definitely understand the idea.

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •