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

again I know this

I'm talking about what would happen here and why I think it's wrong

i agree, this shit really wouldn't fly here