3 ms·

I hope they don't, the whole point of the ban is to ensure an untainted jury. The details will be released once the case has been heard.

by malbs 12y ago

danieltillett 12y ago
Nobody reading wikileaks is ever going to serve on a jury.
- baddox 12y ago
  What makes you think that?
  - danieltillett 12y ago
    If you have ever had the “pleasure” of being called up for jury duty then you will quickly see that anyone thought to have more than half a brain still functioning is excluded. I have been called up several times and been thrown off as soon as my title was noted (not that having a Ph.D means you have half a functioning brain).
    - chaqke 12y ago
      Addendum to the why: - If you lean towards one side, the other side is incentivized to dismiss you. - If you're in a case with lawyers, both sides actually want jurors that they can influence, rather than jurors that will come to their own, unexpected, uncontrollable conclusions. That would be a dangerous wildcard.
  - deleted 12y ago
    [deleted]
- beedogs 12y ago
  [citation needed]
- deleted 12y ago
  [deleted]
- sitkack 12y ago
  I have been a registered voter for 20 years and only called to jury duty once, and that one I missed because I didn't open the envelope. My only hope is that I could keep my goddamn mouth shut long enough to actually get on one.
  - danieltillett 12y ago
    You are lucky. The whole process is incredible inefficient and wasteful of the potential jurors time - call in 100 people and make them sit around all day in the court house just so you can dismiss them all because the defence lawyer wants to play games. Shakespeare was on to something I think.
    - thret 12y ago
      That was my experience the one time I got called in for jury duty. I was very curious about the process and disappointed when I missed the final cut. I did got into the court room, and had a look at the defendant, heard the charges... I was hoping for an experience like '12 Angry Men'. Maybe next time.
  - dwd 12y ago
    Change your registered address: Seems like every time I move I get a letter. Still haven't served and it was only the first time when I had just turned 18 that I walked past the dock for selection.
dmix 12y ago
This is nonsense, jury selections happen every single day around the world on cases that were thoroughly covered by the media. The selection processes is extremely strict in countries like Australia and makes sure the members are untainted.
avz 12y ago
Suppose you were right and it really was about jury impartiality. Why invoke national security? Quote from the article: > The super-injunction invokes “national security” grounds to prevent reporting about the case, by anyone, in order to “prevent damage to Australia's international relations”
_delirium 12y ago
The leaked order doesn't mention fair-trial concerns, and explicitly claims a rather different motivation: 5. The purpose of these orders is to prevent damage to Australia's international relations that may be caused by the publication of material that may damage the reputations of specified individuals who are not the subject of charges in these proceedings. (Off-the-cuff speculation: an Australian may be charged with either taking bribes from, or offering bribes to, someone high-up in another government. In which case, Australia wants to prosecute the Australian in question, but doesn't want to call out the important foreign official on the other side of the transaction.)
nl 12y ago
the whole point of the ban is to ensure an untainted jury Not at all. It's done to "protect Australia's international reputation": The purpose of these orders is to prevent damage to Australia's international relations that may be caused by the publication of material that may damage the reputations of specific individuals who are not the subject of charges in these proceedings The order doesn't even mention jury selection.
DigitalSea 12y ago
You should re-read the gag order, nowhere does it mention anything about tainting a jury or case of any kind. This is purely a political power move to prevent causing issues with trade partners/international relations and you should be concerned like the rest of us something like this is taking place. Really makes you wonder what else is being hidden behind the Abbott government curtain? This definitely won't help LNP's already diminishing support and further plunge Tony Abbott's dismal approval rating down even further (if that is even possible).

I hope they don't, the whole point of the ban is to ensure an untainted jury. The details will be released once the case has been heard.

by malbs 12y ago

I hope they don't, the whole point of the ban is to ensure an untainted jury. The details will be released once the case has been heard.

danieltillett 12y ago

Nobody reading wikileaks is ever going to serve on a jury.

baddox 12y ago
What makes you think that?
- danieltillett 12y ago
  If you have ever had the “pleasure” of being called up for jury duty then you will quickly see that anyone thought to have more than half a brain still functioning is excluded. I have been called up several times and been thrown off as soon as my title was noted (not that having a Ph.D means you have half a functioning brain).
  - chaqke 12y ago
    Addendum to the why: - If you lean towards one side, the other side is incentivized to dismiss you. - If you're in a case with lawyers, both sides actually want jurors that they can influence, rather than jurors that will come to their own, unexpected, uncontrollable conclusions. That would be a dangerous wildcard.
- deleted 12y ago
  [deleted]
beedogs 12y ago
[citation needed]
deleted 12y ago
[deleted]
sitkack 12y ago
I have been a registered voter for 20 years and only called to jury duty once, and that one I missed because I didn't open the envelope. My only hope is that I could keep my goddamn mouth shut long enough to actually get on one.
- danieltillett 12y ago
  You are lucky. The whole process is incredible inefficient and wasteful of the potential jurors time - call in 100 people and make them sit around all day in the court house just so you can dismiss them all because the defence lawyer wants to play games. Shakespeare was on to something I think.
  - thret 12y ago
    That was my experience the one time I got called in for jury duty. I was very curious about the process and disappointed when I missed the final cut. I did got into the court room, and had a look at the defendant, heard the charges... I was hoping for an experience like '12 Angry Men'. Maybe next time.
- dwd 12y ago
  Change your registered address: Seems like every time I move I get a letter. Still haven't served and it was only the first time when I had just turned 18 that I walked past the dock for selection.

dmix 12y ago

This is nonsense, jury selections happen every single day around the world on cases that were thoroughly covered by the media. The selection processes is extremely strict in countries like Australia and makes sure the members are untainted.

avz 12y ago

Suppose you were right and it really was about jury impartiality. Why invoke national security? Quote from the article: > The super-injunction invokes “national security” grounds to prevent reporting about the case, by anyone, in order to “prevent damage to Australia's international relations”

_delirium 12y ago

The leaked order doesn't mention fair-trial concerns, and explicitly claims a rather different motivation: 5. The purpose of these orders is to prevent damage to Australia's international relations that may be caused by the publication of material that may damage the reputations of specified individuals who are not the subject of charges in these proceedings. (Off-the-cuff speculation: an Australian may be charged with either taking bribes from, or offering bribes to, someone high-up in another government. In which case, Australia wants to prosecute the Australian in question, but doesn't want to call out the important foreign official on the other side of the transaction.)

nl 12y ago

the whole point of the ban is to ensure an untainted jury Not at all. It's done to "protect Australia's international reputation": The purpose of these orders is to prevent damage to Australia's international relations that may be caused by the publication of material that may damage the reputations of specific individuals who are not the subject of charges in these proceedings The order doesn't even mention jury selection.

DigitalSea 12y ago

You should re-read the gag order, nowhere does it mention anything about tainting a jury or case of any kind. This is purely a political power move to prevent causing issues with trade partners/international relations and you should be concerned like the rest of us something like this is taking place. Really makes you wonder what else is being hidden behind the Abbott government curtain? This definitely won't help LNP's already diminishing support and further plunge Tony Abbott's dismal approval rating down even further (if that is even possible).