3 ms·
I'm actually more sympathetic than, I suspect, most people here to the argument that judicial integrity requires a certain curtailing of press freedom while the
by Analemma_ 2y ago
I'm actually more sympathetic than, I suspect, most people here to the argument that judicial integrity requires a certain curtailing of press freedom while the case is in progress. I wouldn't want it for my country, and I think it's a bad idea, but I can at least understand the motivation and if someone laid out a principled defense of it, I'd give them a chance to win me over.
But the asymmetry of the UK case makes this completely indefensible, even giving that intellectual charity to prior restraint. The British tabloids get to scream in huge fonts on their front pages that this person is a murderer, but anyone trying to make a case the other way gets muzzled and threatened with prison time? No, no fucking way. Either muzzle all the press related to this case or none of it.
- mjw1007 2y agoIf I understand correctly, in principle there isn't an asymmetry based on point of view, only on time. If the New Yorker had been able to publish their story in the days immediately following the trial, it wouldn't have been blocked. Though the New Yorker story itself does contain claims that more recently there has been an asymmetry based on point of view, at least in some cases of self-censorship.
- bmoxb 2y agoAgreed. UK tabloids are an absolute blight. I wouldn't generally advocate for the censorship of reporting on such a case, but if it's going to happen, then tabloid 'newspapers' would be at the top of the list of organisations to restrict.