3 ms·

The judgment isn't vague at all. It sets out, in 90 paragraphs, the legal and factual basis for the case, ruling much of it against the crown (mainly on the bas

by pmyteh 5y ago

The judgment isn't vague at all. It sets out, in 90 paragraphs, the legal and factual basis for the case, ruling much of it against the crown (mainly on the basis of delay) and some against Murray. And it goes through each criticised post and sets out on what basis it was (or was not) found to be a contempt. Now. You and I don't have the posts, because I assume they've been deleted. That makes it hard if we want to second guess the judges. But Murray has them, and the court also does. And frankly the import of the ruling is straightforward for journalists to follow, too: don't publish information that could identify rape complainants in breach of a court order. Which is routine for court reporters, frankly. And FWIW a superinjunction is particularly easy to follow - don't publish anything about the injunction or the underlying matter. Is that reasonable? In my view no. I think they should never have been created. But they aren't unclear, just Draconian. And they don't apply in the criminal jurisdiction, or in Scotland, so I'm not sure they're very relevant here.

manquer 5y ago
I was talking about the appeal to supreme court which is only 9 pages long [1] and yes I read it. I am specifically talking about page 3 point 4 > [4] The applicant describes himself as a “journalist in new media”. Whatever that may > involve, it is relevant to distinguish his position from that of the mainstream press, which is > regulated, and subject to codes of practice and ethics in a way in which those writing as the > applicant does are not. Specifically how being new media is different is one aspect. The traditional media in U.K. following code of ethics is quite laughable with the history of tabloids abuses and news of the world kind of incidents The other point is so called "jigsawing clause" is very vague because it is not explicit on how much lee way there is for interpretation. Think about it, depending on how much you already know, any information or reporting about some event can be used to glean who the person behind is it. There has to be well defined rules for something like this as it can otherwise be used prosecute any reporter/journalist at a whim . As compared to say "Not naming someone" is clear unambiguous rule to follow [1] https://www.scotcourts.gov.uk/docs/default-source/cos-general-docs/pdf-docs-for-opinions/2021hcj3.pdf https://www.scotcourts.gov.uk/docs/default-source/cos-genera...
- pmyteh 5y ago
  'Traditional' journalists are often mendacious bastards, but also, as a general rule, not stupid enough to flout court orders. And looking at paragraph 70 of the original judgment it doesn't look like this case was anywhere close to raising issues of principle about whether other journalists could comply with similar anonymity orders. Which are routine in Scotland and statutory in England and Wales, and have been for years. And journalists are not, in fact, prosecuted on a whim for contempt of court.
  - manquer 5y ago
    The issue of principle is on how the jigsawing clause would be applied. It does seem similarly has ambiguous test like "I Know it when I see it" Justice Steward wrote for threshold obscenity in Jacobellis v. Ohio [1] Yes, U.K. courts are not in general prosecuting for media contempt ( first case in 50 years?). Relying on the discretion of the court not to prosecute is not the same as having precedence on what extent a report can be interpreted as jigsawing a injunction. "Journalists" (the appeal seems to regard him as second class one at best) shouldn't depend on that fact that courts generally will not prosecute them, Shouldn't they know with some certainty when they are in the clear ? [1] The problem is this is a subjective interpretation, I should also know it the same as the justice would do to make sure I am on the right side of the law ? This was later replaced by Miller test and that established some guidelines to go by.

by pmyteh 5y ago

manquer 5y ago

I was talking about the appeal to supreme court which is only 9 pages long [1] and yes I read it. I am specifically talking about page 3 point 4 > [4] The applicant describes himself as a “journalist in new media”. Whatever that may > involve, it is relevant to distinguish his position from that of the mainstream press, which is > regulated, and subject to codes of practice and ethics in a way in which those writing as the > applicant does are not. Specifically how being new media is different is one aspect. The traditional media in U.K. following code of ethics is quite laughable with the history of tabloids abuses and news of the world kind of incidents The other point is so called "jigsawing clause" is very vague because it is not explicit on how much lee way there is for interpretation. Think about it, depending on how much you already know, any information or reporting about some event can be used to glean who the person behind is it. There has to be well defined rules for something like this as it can otherwise be used prosecute any reporter/journalist at a whim . As compared to say "Not naming someone" is clear unambiguous rule to follow [1] https://www.scotcourts.gov.uk/docs/default-source/cos-general-docs/pdf-docs-for-opinions/2021hcj3.pdf https://www.scotcourts.gov.uk/docs/default-source/cos-genera...

pmyteh 5y ago
'Traditional' journalists are often mendacious bastards, but also, as a general rule, not stupid enough to flout court orders. And looking at paragraph 70 of the original judgment it doesn't look like this case was anywhere close to raising issues of principle about whether other journalists could comply with similar anonymity orders. Which are routine in Scotland and statutory in England and Wales, and have been for years. And journalists are not, in fact, prosecuted on a whim for contempt of court.
- manquer 5y ago
  The issue of principle is on how the jigsawing clause would be applied. It does seem similarly has ambiguous test like "I Know it when I see it" Justice Steward wrote for threshold obscenity in Jacobellis v. Ohio [1] Yes, U.K. courts are not in general prosecuting for media contempt ( first case in 50 years?). Relying on the discretion of the court not to prosecute is not the same as having precedence on what extent a report can be interpreted as jigsawing a injunction. "Journalists" (the appeal seems to regard him as second class one at best) shouldn't depend on that fact that courts generally will not prosecute them, Shouldn't they know with some certainty when they are in the clear ? [1] The problem is this is a subjective interpretation, I should also know it the same as the justice would do to make sure I am on the right side of the law ? This was later replaced by Miller test and that established some guidelines to go by.