I left in the 90's

Post #195,043 by ben_tilly 2/16/05 5:57:00 PM Reply	I left in the 90's And I clearly remember, after I left, that it was routine for there to be court cases in which judges would say that stories were not allowed to be reported on in Canada. Glancing at the Charter, the first clause is an exemption that you could drive a Mack truck through, and undoubtably the cases of court muzzling that I remember were so driven. That is, the government is free to erect any limitations on the rights guaranteed in the Charter as long as they can be demonstrably justified in a free and democratic society. I'm sure that Bush, Ashcroft and Co. would love it if the US system had a blanket exemption as big as that one (particularly if you can get your case heard by a friendly judge). I stand by my statement. Canada does not, even in theory, uphold the principle of freedom of speech. The USA definitely does that in theory, and has been known to do it in very painful and embarrasing practice. (eg The Pentagon Papers for one example, or for another, instructions for how to build hydrogen bombs.) Sincerely, Ben I have come to believe that idealism without discipline is a quick road to disaster, while discipline without idealism is pointless. -- Aaron Ward (my brother)
Post #195,046 by jake123 2/16/05 6:03:20 PM Reply	Hey, publication bans happen all the time in the US too The point being that they're temporary, not permanent. It's very unusual for them to be made permanent, with the exception of sexual abuse cases involving minors (or indeed any case involving minors). However, during a trial sometimes things are banned from publication until after a jury reaches a verdict to avoid polluting a jury. Afterwards, the entire transcript will be published, and anybody who cares to can go down to the courthouse and read it. The cases you heard about were almost universally because the newspapers in question didn't want to have to wait. --\n-------------------------------------------------------------------\n* Jack Troughton jake at consultron.ca \n [link\|http://consultron.ca\|http://consultron.ca] [link\|irc://irc.ecomstation.ca\|irc://irc.ecomstation.ca] \n Kingston Ontario Canada [link\|news://news.consultron.ca\|news://news.consultron.ca] *\n-------------------------------------------------------------------
Post #195,048 by ben_tilly 2/16/05 6:44:35 PM Reply	They do? Examples, please. As I understand it, a judge can decide whether or not to permit reporters in the court, and can try to get reporters to agree to specific conditions. However judges can't tell reporters that they cannot tell people about a case, and cannot keep reporters who happen to hear details from reporting them. By contrast in Canada judges may say that they don't want something reported, and nobody is allowed to report it. Period. Furthermore my impression of how common permanent publication bans are is different from yours. Specifically I understand that it is rare for an entire case to not be reportable (excepting cases involving minors - and there are lots of those), but fairly frequently a small portion of a case is permanently banned (eg testimony from family members about how much grief they went through, which doesn't affect whether the verdict is guilty, but may affect sentencing). Cheers, Ben I have come to believe that idealism without discipline is a quick road to disaster, while discipline without idealism is pointless. -- Aaron Ward (my brother)

Welcome to IWETHEY!