2 ms·
'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 th
by 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 agoThe 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.