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 Stew

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.