Reader Comments (rss)

(Flattened / Threaded)

1.  

   

   Aint No Lawyer, Sep 26th, 2008 @ 5:11pm

   
   

   How is this different when any other judge puts a blackout on press during the trail of a case. I thought it was illegal to report on the proceedings while they're in session, to keep the jury as impartial as possible; but, I could most certianly have no clue what im talking about.

   [ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

2.  

   Conflict of Interest

   

   Lawrence D'Oliveiro, Sep 27th, 2008 @ 3:12am

   
   

   Journalists are supposed to disclose if they have any interest in a matter on which they're reporting. For an interest as big as this, which could actually be prejudicial to the outcome of a court case, such a restriction seems reasonable, really. Other newspapers and media should be able to report on the case, just not the one directly involved.

   [ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

3.  

   

   Ben, Sep 29th, 2008 @ 4:58am

   
   

   I think the problem here isn't a news blackout, but the judge singling a single newspaper out? If it was a gag on all then would make more sense, assuming there was something sensitive going on, like a minor or such.

   [ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

4.  

   news blackout

   

   Joe, Sep 29th, 2008 @ 11:13am

   
   

   Judges aren't allowed to ban any kind of news coverage whatsoever; it's constitutionally protected.
   
   Judges can order a "news blackout" on the members of the jury, but that's it. They can also order nobody to talk to jurors, and do other things to control the proceedings... ban cameras in court etc. or even close the courtroom under certain circumstances.
   
   But they're not supposed to be able to ban any kind of reporting.

   [ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

Add Your Comment