One thing that got lost in this whole "leading a real life" thing I've been sucked into was a reply to Porphy concluding our discussion of the French censorship truc below.
G Gonzalez (in the comments) is definitely right, and so is Porphy. I let my distaste for media overkill (remember, we're the house with no T.V.) tip the balance too far. Porphy's comment nails it:
However, judging from Armed Liberal's initial post, he didn't know, either, that Eva Joly was involved in the case. His post seems to imply that third parties (say, journalists or others looking into the case on their own account, but not part of the trial proceedings) not only can, but should, be gagged by judicial decree.Je me rends (I surrender)...
This is not part of normal jurisprudence. I would ask if Armed Liberal thinks that third parties (reporters, bloggers, writers and the like who are otherwise involved in the proceedings but do "investigative reporting" into the matter and then write - either for publication in a newspaper, magazine, or book - on the topic, or speak on it - say, on radio or TV or even at a public forum somewhere) can and should be kept from talking about it, by court decree?
Well done, sir.
I hope some trial attorney in Canada sets me right about this if I'm wrong, but when I was living there I recall that gag orders regarding court proceedings were fairly common.
In fact I'd say it's what Canada tends to do rather than sequester the jury.
AL,
Hear hear! Or would it be "oyez! oyez!".
Take heart. Glenn Reynolds has posted a new challenge for you: http://www.instapundit.com/archives/010221.php. (Maybe you should get the T.V. first: http://www.plasmavision.com/)
GG -
Well, if I'm gonna watch sadomasochistic orgies (!!). a 50" plasma screen TV would be the minimum, wouldn't you say??
More on France and personal experience with corruption later.
A.L.
Yes, those sorts of things do happen here in Canada. Do I object? No. It's one of the things that helps keep the trials from becoming O.J. circuses, and even in the case of Paul Bernardo, it worked. The authors still get to publish their books, so it's not like they're being gagged unreasonably.
Does this mean people can't talk about it? No, it does not. Again, the Bernardo trial is a good example. It was all over the newspaper for months, including editorials and commentary. But the trial wasn't televised, reporting of certain items was banned, and books based in part on evidence applicable to the trial were held up, I believe.
Again, I haven't the slightest problem with this. There are some things more important than the next episode of "Entertainment Tonight," and proper administration of justice when the future liberty of a citizen is at stake is one of them.