But the battle reaches beyond one particular case. It’s a contest of competing democratic values.
The core debate is an old one, pitting the right of the accused to a fair trial against the right of free speech, and of the public to know what’s going on in the courtroom. Those poles are not mutually exclusive: Trials in Australia, as in the United States, are usually both open and fair.
“What you need for a fair trial are fair and unbiased jurors, not people who have been kept in the dark,” said Kurt Wimmer, a media and technology lawyer who is a partner with Covington and Burling in Washington.
Because of the way technology has shifted the media landscape, gag orders now raise additional questions of scale and geography. The question now is whether a local judge, in protecting the right to a fair trial, should have the unilateral authority to silence journalists and publishers around the globe.
In the case at hand, a criminal matter involving someone whose previous position of power touched the lives of millions all over the world, the stakes are especially high. The defendant is well known, having played a public role with issues and institutions that inspire strong emotions, making bias harder to stamp out.
On the other side are not just journalists, but also those who were affected by the defendants’ actions over many years in many places. They demand accountability, and also claim a right to know, seeing secrecy as an accomplice to the crimes of the case.
A few news outlets without personnel or a corporate presence in Australia — and therefore no legal obligation or vulnerability — have already reported the case’s latest developments online. On Twitter and Facebook, where the news can be found but is not ubiquitous, there has been praise from some Australians that the news was posted, and criticism from others worried that publication has jeopardized justice.
Other attempts to maneuver within the law have varied. One news site published the news online but tried to block access to the article in Australia. The New York Times published the news in its American print editions, but not online, while Australian media outlets have tried to sidestep the issue, boldly calling out the court’s restrictions while avoiding mention of the underlying news.
from Just News Update https://ift.tt/2S1K5kF
0 Comments