denying freedom of speech, or fair play?

[js207]

The judge's demands go much too far, IMO - and other countries take a different approach.

The justification for the restriction is that revealing details might influence the jury inappropriately. At most, that should be valid up until the moment at which the jury is empanelled and either sequestered, or warned to avoid looking at any reporting of the case; to gag the entire population just to prevent a dozen individuals overhearing something inappropriate is one of the most ludicrously disproportionate measures imaginable!

It's also increasingly futile, of course: the judge's authority is limited to England, so the rest of us are free to discuss the case regardless. Sooner or later, they will have to rethink this brute force approach.

[thir]

The judge's demands go much too far, IMO - and other countries take a different approach.

The justification for the restriction is that revealing details might influence the jury inappropriately. At most, that should be valid up until the moment at which the jury is empanelled and either sequestered, or warned to avoid looking at any reporting of the case; to gag the entire population just to prevent a dozen individuals overhearing something inappropriate is one of the most ludicrously disproportionate measures imaginable!

It's also increasingly futile, of course: the judge's authority is limited to England, so the rest of us are free to discuss the case regardless. Sooner or later, they will have to rethink this brute force approach.

I have come to the conclusion that it is in fact reasonably and necessary to keep trials fair, and that the public has no 'need' to know details that may influence the trial.

The difficult discussion about free speech has many facets, but in this case, as in threats and posting pics without peoples permission I think we have to curb it.