Message from @Grenade123
Discord ID: 449605735630897152
now, i don't know the UK, but in the US we do trail by jury and the jury is supposed to be unbais. Should they be forced to split up a trial into several parts because of the number of people, then reporting on the results before all people have their trail, could turn any and all jury's bias, which would end up denying peoples rights to a fair trail, and result, most likely, in everyone else left to be tried getting off on a mistrial
when I was on jury duty for isleworth court we were told we were not allowed to view any social media or anything or talk about it outisde the court
exactly
yeah it would be on the onus of the jury, not the press
imo
well, this may be why they don't want the press reporting the results until the end of the trail
that wouldn't stand here
freedom of the press would apply here I would think
since part of the trail isn't happening until September, you'd basically need to jail the jury if the media was allowed to report on it
"you have been chosen for jury duty, but because your part of the trail doesn't happen until september, and the media can report the results, we need to lock you away so noone can talk to you"
i think there is a slight difference between not being allowed to report it ever, and needing to wait until all results are in
I don't think there is
there's no responsibility, really, for the press NOT to report on it as soon as it knows. at least here in the US
there is no NDA, no security clearance
etc
so, you propose the media can report on the findings, then, because you can't keep a jury that isolated for a year, let off everyone in the September trail because there is no unbiased jury?
that would be speech suppression by the goverment.. basically
or do we detain the jury all year
no, i would not fucking have a trial so far out if the information leaking could affect the outcome
well true
but some fuckwad made that choice (or maybe they are too busy putting people on trail for hate speech to do it any sooner), so now what?
This is basically victim blaming
btw
i....wut
oh you're the victim of knowledge and you shared it, you goto jail
because we can't be sensible in our court proceedings
not victim of knowledge, but you get what I'm saying
are you a leftist?
anyway, I think it's BS in either case
"you did an action, but you are the victim"
haha no
>you shared it
that is an action
it would be victim blaming if you jailed the jury for hearing it
an action I don't deem illegal...
sharing information, in this case, isn't illegal..
i.e. reporting on the trial, possbily the verdict.. that wouldn't be illegal here, regardless
hence why the jury is usually instructed to not watch the media
so you can't arrest media for that, and TR is media in this case.. so our first amendment should protect what he was doing
well in this case, not watch the media (for a year), talk to family (for a year), talk to colleagues (for a year). Since we are here, because some fuckwad (the person who should really be sent to jail) split this up across a year. What are the options?
also, this is in the UK
not supressing the media is not an option