4 ms·

Rights in the USA are ultimately protected by a written constitution. In the UK we have no constitution we rely on an independent judiciary. They frequently tel

Rights in the USA are ultimately protected by a written constitution. In the UK we have no constitution we rely on an independent judiciary. They frequently tell the government no you can't do that. Judges while not perfect are respected. And we all agree that during a trial we all shut up and leave it to be done properly. To be clear if anyone from the New Yorker or elsewhere feels they have genuine evidence to contribute they can approach the defense barrister and ask for it to be included. But they will have to make the effort for it to be done properly and seriously. There is a lot that could be better in the UK justice system but I don't object to the actual principle being enforced here. When the trial is done the media will be rightly free to hold it to account.

returningfory2 2y ago
But what happens if you apply this argument to other situations? For example, suppose you discover a politician is taking bribes. In the UK there is a formal process by which the police can investigate and then bring a case if the evidence is substantive. By your argument here, it would be okay if the government prevented you from publishing the bribery claims in a newspaper. After all, if someone “feels they have genuine evidence [of bribery] to contribute they can approach the [police] and ask for it to be included”. No need for a free press at all.
- dfawcus 2y ago
  No, that only applies (in E+W) while a trial is live, or in Scotland from the police investigation being live, to end of investigation and/or trial. If there is no police investigation (Scotland) nor trial (either country), the you can publish what you want. However the normal rules for defamation apply, but there is no prior restraint absent the aforementioned legal processes being live. So if you want to publish about a politician allegedly taking bribes, then have at it. If you can prove its truth, you have a defense to any subsequent defamation (Scotland) or libel (England) case.
DEADMINCE 2y ago
> In the UK we have no constitution we rely on an independent judiciary. And we see how much weaker that system is. The country and similar countries like Australia are significantly less free as a result.

returningfory2 2y ago

But what happens if you apply this argument to other situations? For example, suppose you discover a politician is taking bribes. In the UK there is a formal process by which the police can investigate and then bring a case if the evidence is substantive. By your argument here, it would be okay if the government prevented you from publishing the bribery claims in a newspaper. After all, if someone “feels they have genuine evidence [of bribery] to contribute they can approach the [police] and ask for it to be included”. No need for a free press at all.

dfawcus 2y ago
No, that only applies (in E+W) while a trial is live, or in Scotland from the police investigation being live, to end of investigation and/or trial. If there is no police investigation (Scotland) nor trial (either country), the you can publish what you want. However the normal rules for defamation apply, but there is no prior restraint absent the aforementioned legal processes being live. So if you want to publish about a politician allegedly taking bribes, then have at it. If you can prove its truth, you have a defense to any subsequent defamation (Scotland) or libel (England) case.

DEADMINCE 2y ago

> In the UK we have no constitution we rely on an independent judiciary. And we see how much weaker that system is. The country and similar countries like Australia are significantly less free as a result.