which is a new charge

technically should have been a new trial/crime/whatever

well, Britain doesn't share your 5th amendment either

@LotheronPrime slander/libel don‘t specifically target gender and are actually a thing.

that's my point

we already have broader laws on the books, why must they be specialized?

I mean I get the precedent with having hate crime sentencing

dont necessarily agree with it though

The media black out on Tommy Robinson has been lifted. He revived 13 months for attempting to film defendants outside a courthouse. Apparently this is illegal, and it was also clearly posted. Tommy pled guilty and expressed regret.
http://archive.today/dl3TU

wasn't he jsut already repeating what other news outlets had published?

also it was a poor decision, but the underlying free speech issue still exists

https://thesecretbarrister.com/2018/05/25/what-has-happened-to-poor-tommy-robinson/amp/?__twitter_impression=true

I definitely don’t agree with U.K. law on this subject. It is my understanding that the names were already public, but it appears that this was about filming the defendants as they entered the court.

I don’t agree at all with these press blackouts.

exactly

so did he break the law

yes

does it make it right

no

^that's a good lenghty read

the writer *doesn't get it* but it's a good read

"We have a quaint tradition in England and Wales that trial by media should be avoided, and that trial on evidence heard in court is the fairest way to determine a person’s guilt."

^ that doesn't sound like a law, tradition <> law

https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/Geo5/15-16/86/section/41

there's a/the law

I can see the reasoning behind hiding/protecting an accused until proven guilty

everyone has rights until proven guilty

I can too, but I, as an American, don't believe that should trample our 1A rights

well, and in America we have the problem that law is designed to prevent. The defense calling for a mistrial. Which is perhaps rightfully so.

but also, a technicality here I'll agree, I believe in this situation, the trail was over and they were going in for sentencing, I could be wrong though

i heard that too, but I think this would all be overturned by now if true

this is an issue of when two rights end up in opposition. Neither can be greater than the other, yet one must come out on top.

and we do have that situation, and mistrials are a thing, buuuut we have times were it didn't end in a mistrial, etc.. like the https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Duke_lacrosse_case

freedom of speech vs freedom of a fair trial

I agree

a mistrial isn't a good solution, because then you are potentially letting someone who is very much guilty walk free

and honestly it doesn't come up THAT often to be a big issue to my knowledge

I generally thing that jurors are able to be impartial in most situations, regardless of what they hear in the media

I mean

ultimately I think innocent until proven guilty should play a big part

look at the OJ trial