There's still another trial to come
There's still another trial to come
Wow, interesting, gag the entire media of a nation? Impressive.
Can you google international news? Do internet search engines cooperate with this as well?
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 03:33 PM.
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)Originally Posted by Freude am Fahren
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.
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.
Time to remember this little ditty I think ...
More on the Pell thing and the gag-order: https://www.washingtonpost.com/lifes...=.d5253842b973
This is so very interesting to me... because I’m not really sure I’m 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...
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.
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
Reply With Quote