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

It’s a complicated situation, but I seriously doubt that Tommy ranting outside a courthouse is really going to change a jury’s mind practically speaking.

^

that we can agree.

but there is spirit of the law, and letter of the law

so while the spirit of the law was probably not broken, the letter of the law technically was

and this is where we get the notion any law will be taken to its extremes

it might not change the jurys mind... but its putting some people in view of millions of people - who may turn out to just be innocent people

but prison seems unjust ... a large fine seems more appropriate (depending on the size of the outlet)

well, he already had a prison sentence

as we discussed

the prison sentence was for the same thing

I thought initially it was for his mortgage problem thing... but hes already done his time for that

this would put our 1A and 5A at odds witch each other.. but I think 1A would win out here

this really is what the supreme court is for i would think