NationStates Jolt Archive

This is really a first draft. I am writing it as I go along, and not really checking the spelling or grammar. So, if at all possible, if you have any comments, could any suggestions be about the topic, and the clauses, rather than my pathetic attmepts at spelling and typing :}


Name : Sub-Judice
Category : Moral Deceny
Strength : Significant to Strong
Proposed By : well - me I suppose.

Description :

NOTING that the UN supports the concept of Fair Trials (#two resolutions),

NOTING the resolution regarding the Freedom of The Press (#one resolution),

ACCEPTING that people are only human (mortal?) and are influenced by the media whether they realise it or not,

STATING that this can lead to bias in a trial, making it less than fair,

STATES that

1) Once a person (or persons) is bound over for trial (arraigned) the media will be forbidden from publshing anything on any aspect of the trial until it starts,
2) Once a trial has begun, the media may only report what is said in court while the jury is present,
3) No person involved with the trial maybe approached by the media for any purpose while the trial is continuing,
4) The media is forbidden from publishing anything that the judge involved in the trial has deemed in admissible,
5) Even after the trial has concluded, the media may not approach the jury for comment or interview, and the names of the jury can not be published under any circumstances.

Any media source found in violation of these rules will be charged with contempt of court and treated appropriately.

Note : The media refers to any source of news, be it television, radio, newspapers, magazines, internet sites and so forth.
Note : Between the binding over for trial and the announcement of the verdict, no media source is permitted to print opinion regarding the case.
Note : If a message-board on the internet is found to be hosting posts that might be in violation of this law, they must remove this posts if asked to do so by the judge involved (or anyone working on the judges behalf)


I realise this does limit somewhat the freedom of the press, it does not violate the resolution that relates to it (as far as I can tell).

The reason the jury's names may not be published, and they can not be approached for interviews, is because what is said in the jury room should stay in there. If one jurour says that another one voted a certain way, he could become a target for revenge. Futher to this what is said in the jury room could give grounds for further legal actions (slander, liable etc) and could well lead to people being reluctant to serve on juries which will cause chaos and mayhem in the judicial system.

So - comments? Queries?

Good Resolution, I like it and will uphold it. I would like to make a suggestion for punishment included within the text if the media violates it.

Good Resolution, I like it and will uphold it. I would like to make a suggestion for punishment included within the text if the media violates it.

Most nations will already have punishments for contempt of court - the crime that would be committed if people are in violation of this - and I don't want to get in to setting punishments on an international level, as it will only lead to the "national sovereignty" flag being waved :}

This is quite the blow to governmental transparency. Court proceedings are public for a reason; this is a great hindrance to that. Governments who have something to hide will misuse this, mark my word.

some media outlets have succesful reality-based programs centered around certain trials. while this is regulated in Resistancia, i.e. certain trials are not shown due to the nature of the crime and in the intrest of protecting some victims, this resolution would impose on this part of the press. as we have no problems with balanced reporting on the situation, and also recognising some trials are sensitive in nature, we will not be supporting this.

This is quite the blow to governmental transparency. Court proceedings are public for a reason; this is a great hindrance to that. Governments who have something to hide will misuse this, mark my word.

I am not suggesting that the press don't cover anything. The court process will still be open and public, but - well this is an example.

Mr Jones is on trial for murder. The jury are present, and a witness - Mr Smith - testifies that Mr Jones was on the 8:12am bus to Silvana.

That can be reported. It's not a problem - it's been said in open court and the press can report it.

But then The prosecuter needs to ask if some documents about Mr Jones can be brought in to evidence. So the jury is sent out while the documents are discussed. And the judge decides they are not relevent and would bias the jury against Mr Jones for no apparent reason. So the jury can not find out about them.

This means that if the press publishes the contents of the documents, the jury could then find out about them, and the idea of a fair trial goes out of the window, because even though the judge has dismissed these documents, the jury have been exposed to them and can now be biased.

Just to make this clear - this doesn't mean trials are conducted in private, and it doesn't mean that the public can't go to trials, and it doesn't mean the press can't report ANYTHING about the trial. All evidence given under oath can be reported, and all arguements by the prosecution and defence can be reported if they are in they are made in the presence of the jury.

All it does mean is that, while the trial is going on, the press can't say "MR JONES IS A GUILTY BASTARD", and it can't interview a friend of the defendent - Miss Smith - who was at school with him and once was stood up by him in the fifth year (because it is something connected with the trial that is not in open court).

I admit I might not be thinking it through, but I can't see how this can be abused by a government. Can you give me an example?

generally juries are denied access to such media outlets, both in intial journalistic questioning, and also the end medial output, thus maintaining a fair trial anyway, thus making this a pointless article

generally juries are denied access to such media outlets, both in intial journalistic questioning, and also the end medial output, thus maintaining a fair trial anyway, thus making this a pointless article

Seriously? Someone who is on a jury for five months in a row is kept away from all media outlets? How? Do you keep all juries sequestered for five months? Lock them up in a hotel for that long?

Maybe it is possible that that is possible in your nation, but in TilEnca people on juries are allowed to go home at night while the trial is on. The only time they are not permitted is during the deliberations - once the trial is over and they are considering the verdict. And that is so they can not be possibly influenced at all by anyone except the other jurours.

Ok - I am really curious. How do you prevent a jurour from reading a newspaper during the whole length of the trial?

I agree it is only fair to the suspect I will hold this law.

Seriously? Someone who is on a jury for five months in a row is kept away from all media outlets? How? Do you keep all juries sequestered for five months? Lock them up in a hotel for that long?

Maybe it is possible that that is possible in your nation, but in TilEnca people on juries are allowed to go home at night while the trial is on. The only time they are not permitted is during the deliberations - once the trial is over and they are considering the verdict. And that is so they can not be possibly influenced at all by anyone except the other jurours.

Ok - I am really curious. How do you prevent a jurour from reading a newspaper during the whole length of the trial?

as a requirement, the procecution and defence have to have their cases in order and evidence validated before a case goes to trial before a jury, in an effort to trim court times and reduce the impact on those acting as jurors. sufficient time is given before the trial process is even started. given that, reviewing resolution in place, there is already one to protect the right to a fair trial. if a judge deems that media coverage can impead on this, they he can request that the trial be free from media coverage.

that being said, for a nation that proclaims it has laws against lying, i am quite surprised that trials would last for more than a month.

for a nation that proclaims it has laws against lying, i am quite surprised that trials would last for more than a month.
Not to jump in here and speak on behalf of TilEnca, but just because there are laws against something doesn't mean that no one ever breaks the laws. Most nations have laws against murder, but does that mean that no one ever kills anyone? I wish that were the case, but obviously no.

Laws only provide a deterrent from doing certain actions and a punishment for those who break the law. They in no way prevent certain things from ever being done.

as a requirement, the procecution and defence have to have their cases in order and evidence validated before a case goes to trial before a jury, in an effort to trim court times and reduce the impact on those acting as jurors. sufficient time is given before the trial process is even started. given that, reviewing resolution in place, there is already one to protect the right to a fair trial. if a judge deems that media coverage can impead on this, they he can request that the trial be free from media coverage.


Somewhat ooc - but most people would consider America to be a land where you can get a fair trial, and the media coverage for some of the trials there is appalling.

Back in character - You know that this affects all the other nations in the UN, right? And that maybe not everyone has such a wonderfully fantastic legal system as you?

Also - how do you deal with surprise witnesses? Or evidence that is only found while the court case is in progress?


that being said, for a nation that proclaims it has laws against lying, i am quite surprised that trials would last for more than a month.

Of bloody hell. For (hopefully) the last time - I have made it clear that the thing about lying was related to the press. I mentioned that in the original post and a lot of posts after it. If people are not going to read what I write then why should I care about their opinions?


Secdonly - there are laws against lying in TilEnca, and there should be laws against lying in most nations. The free press is free to say what it wants, but it has to be able to prove what it is saying.


This was what people are taking to be laws against lying. And clearly, since it is a thread about the press, and then goes on to talk about the press being free to say what it likes as long as it can prove it, I think it's bloody obvious it is talking about lying in the press and not in general.

Then again - maybe I underestitated the level of common sense I can expect out of my fellow UN members.

Interesting idea, and I think I would support it. I need to think on it a bit, and see if I can't think of any constructive comments/suggestions to make. In theory, I like it though. :)

i am tired so i will make it brief.

I Like it!

Thank you and good night!

*reviews the proposal*

After review, as long as this applies to cases where there is a jury, or or a non-jury case where the judge requests that the media not be involved, we will support this. we recognise that trials belong in the court, not in the media. but we also recognise some media outlets also have highly successful programs bassed on some court situations, and that this media coverage should be restricted to cases where there is no jury, and the judge allows it. in the case of civil cases, the plantiff and defendant can request that their cases can be free from media involvement.

in response to surprise witnesses, we believe that this impeads upon the idea of a fair trial, because the either side is not given a chance to analys it, and as such, the defence or prosecution can call for a miss-trial on this basis. prosecution and defence is given adequet time in order to build their cases and get their witnesses before it goes before a jury. if more evidence or witnesses arise, there is the ability to request a retrial, where a new jury is selected. such things as surprise witnesses can favour the case to one side, thus making it not a fair trial.

I'm sorry my friend, buy I think this is a terrible idea.

The most important idea behind freedom of the press is that it be a counterweight to governmental power.

There is no governmental power greater than the power to accuse someone of criminal conduct.

I'm sorry my friend, buy I think this is a terrible idea.

The most important idea behind freedom of the press is that it be a counterweight to governmental power.

There is no governmental power greater than the power to accuse someone of criminal conduct.

How does this counteract this? The press are permitted to report everything that is said in the trial, providing it is said before the jury. It is also permitted to report on things before the person is bound over for trial. The only limit imposed is that the press can not report anything that the jury does not here during the trial, so that it can't bias them one way or the other. But once the trial is over and the verdict/sentence has been passed the press can publish anything they want.

As an example - me. (This is all hypothetical, before anyone gets curious).

Three children are found dead. The press reports this and reports that I am a suspect (for various reasons). The police interview me, but let me go. So the press continue to report on the investigation. Then the police bring me back in and then charge me with the crime. However the press then charge me, and the TPS (TilEncan Prosecution Service) says there is enough evidence to bring me to trial.

Right there the press are forbidden from reporting anything on the case. They can report I have been bound over for trial, but that's it. They can't report the facts of the case, they can't report that I once cheated on my maths exam. They can't interview me, my husband, my ministers or anything. Nothing that could bias the potential jury one way or another.

When the trial starts the jury is selected. In this case the only thing the pres can report is that the jury is being selected, and the bare facts of the case. That three children were murdered, and that I am being held for trial and that the jury has been selected.

Then - when the trial starts - the press can report everything in the trial, more or less. The opening statements, the evidence, the direct and cross examinations, any statements - they can all be reported (as long as they are reported accurately of course). What the press can not report is any legal arguement that is made when the jury is not in the court room. For example if the prosecutor wants to introduce a piece of rope found in my back yard because it is of the same type that the children were tied up with, he would have to argue this while the jury are out. And if the judge says no then the press can not report that this evidence was denied while the case is running. Also if - for example - a documentary was done on the missing children, and the judge rules that it is inadmissible, the press can not report on this, and - further to that - no media outless can show this documentary again until after the trial is done because it could bias the jury.

Once the jury have been excused to consider their verdict, the press are pretty much done. They can report that the jury is considering it's verdict, but that's pretty much it.

Then when the jury come back and tell the judge that I am not guilty (do I look like the type who would murder three children?) then the press can report anything and everything about the trial - including the judges dismissal of the evidence and so forth.

If the jury come back and convict me then the same rules apply - the press can report anything to do with the trial.

None of this interferes with the judicial process, and none of this interferes with the freedom of the press to report that someone has been accused, is being tried and the evidence against them. And this applies whether it is Mr Jones who lives down the road or the person in the highest office in the land.

So how will this interfere with freedom of the press? If you can show me a way, then I will be happy to discuss it. If you can't, well then I hope you will consider changing your mind :}

I support this proposal.

Indecently could you TG me the link to the previous discussion on it.

Giordano,
Acting Senior UN representative,
The Black New World,
Delegate to The Order of The Valiant States

I do understand where you're coming from, but I have to say that I am uncomfortable with putting such limits on not only the national press and media, but also any public forum, for example, even this forum that we are talking on. Censorship to such an extent seems unjustified.

Furthermore, shouldn't the media be able to speculate on trial proceedings or criminal investigations? Surely if they feel there has been some kind of misconduct, or that important issues are being left unheard, then they should be able to make others aware of this issue? Because a miscarriage of justice which occurs in one case can happen in many if it is not caught and highlighted.

Perhaps I could be happy with a more limited version of your proposal. One that prevents unrelated reporting on the accused for example. However, although the jury may not be able to hear that someone accused of rape had been accused 17 times before, I think the public should be made aware of this. Hell, I think the jury should be allowed to too but that's another issue.

I think leaving alot of relevant stuff out of the media will only result in backlash after the trial has ended, when the papers can print what they like. It may even then result in more anger at someone going free than would otherwise be the case: that person's life could then become extremely difficult.

These are all just ramblings that pop into my head right now, make sense of it if you will (and can).

I do understand where you're coming from, but I have to say that I am uncomfortable with putting such limits on not only the national press and media, but also any public forum, for example, even this forum that we are talking on. Censorship to such an extent seems unjustified.


It's censorship, but not because the government want it hidden. It's because it is the only way to ensure a fair trial.


Furthermore, shouldn't the media be able to speculate on trial proceedings or criminal investigations? Surely if they feel there has been some kind of misconduct, or that important issues are being left unheard, then they should be able to make others aware of this issue? Because a miscarriage of justice which occurs in one case can happen in many if it is not caught and highlighted.


Suppose you are on trial for - lets say - fraud. For the whole of the trial the press is reporting it as "the suspect lied in the witness box when he said" or "the suspect looked suspicious when he answered the question". Can you not see how that is going to interfere with the judicial process if the press have already judged you guilty and are making every effort to subvert the judical process?

If the press feels that the judge is wrong in not admitting some evidence during the trial, you are happy with the idea that a journalist - who has NO legal training, can just overrule the decision of a judge and publish lots of information that could totally destroy the defence or prosecution case? That the press can subvert the judicial process by just ignoring the ruling of the judge - who has legal training - and doing what they want?

You are happy with the idea that what is supposed to be an unbiased and independent process can just be ignored in favour of a witch-hunt? The press is convinced Mr Jones is guilty, despite all the evidence, so they use rumour and inuendto to blacken Mr Jones' name and convince the jury that he is guilty.



Perhaps I could be happy with a more limited version of your proposal. One that prevents unrelated reporting on the accused for example. However, although the jury may not be able to hear that someone accused of rape had been accused 17 times before, I think the public should be made aware of this. Hell, I think the jury should be allowed to too but that's another issue.


That is a whole other topic. If someone is being charged with rape then the evidence should ONLY pertain to that charge and this case. If the evidence does not stand up that someone did not commit the crime, then their past behaviour will not be of any relevence.
But - this is a different topic. And if the press publish stuff that the judge has ruled inadmissible in relation to the current case then it will severly undermine the judicial process and the concept of a fair trial might as well be abandoned.


I think leaving alot of relevant stuff out of the media will only result in backlash after the trial has ended, when the papers can print what they like. It may even then result in more anger at someone going free than would otherwise be the case: that person's life could then become extremely difficult.


I would say that most of the time the media has no one with the legal training that judges and advocates get. So how can you be sure that the journalist who feels something is relevent is actually right? Or that they are only bringing stuff to the attention of the public that supports their view of the case?
Further more - if the media publish a headline during the case that says "FILTHY PERVERT JONES DOWNLOADS 10GB OF PORN" when he is on trial for taking indecent photos - does that not instantly put in to the minds of the public that this guy is a pervert and as such is most likely guilty, even if there is no other evidence than that?

Just to be clear - anything that the judge says infront of the jury, anything that witnesses say, anything that the advocates say infront of the jury, any statements by witnesses not present, any audio or video evidence played infront of the jury can be reported in the media. But anything that is ruled in admissible can not be mentioned until the trial is over, and the media can not report their opinions on the case until the trial is over, and the media can not do anything that could be considered an attempt to pervert the course of justice by attempting to sway the jury one way or another.

Because if you permit a trial by media - that the entire trial is conducted in the press before the actual trial gets underway - then you might as well abandon the idea of free and fair trials altogether and just go for witch-hunts and lynchings instead.


These are all just ramblings that pop into my head right now, make sense of it if you will (and can).

I do make sense of them, and they lead me to believe I don't ever want to be on trial in your nation for anything, because if the media can write what ever they want about someone who has yet to be convicted, then I don't know how you ever conduct a fair trial.

I support this proposal.

Indecently could you TG me the link to the previous discussion on it.

Giordano,
Acting Senior UN representative,
The Black New World,
Delegate to The Order of The Valiant States

I wasn't aware there was one?

I do make sense of them, and they lead me to believe I don't ever want to be on trial in your nation for anything, because if the media can write what ever they want about someone who has yet to be convicted, then I don't know how you ever conduct a fair trial.

[OOC] I don't believe I've referred to the laws in my NS nation. If anything I was referring to the real life situation as I understand it in my country. While there are some laws designed to protect those in trial (e.g. off the top of my head, no printing the names/identities of those on trial under the age of 16 etc), there is not such severe regulations on what is said on the trial itself. I don't think...

[IC] However, I have reviewed your proposal and your arguments concering it, and believe I could quite happily live with it if one alteration was made, which I will come back to. I realise that my point about miscarriages of justice, etc, and the need for them to be realised, could always come about through an appeal after the initial trial.

Returning now to the amendment I would like you to consider, it concerns only one minor clause:

Note : If a message-board on the internet is found to be hosting posts that might be in violation of this law, they must remove this posts if asked to do so by the judge involved (or anyone working on the judges behalf)

This is no longer concerning the media. This is now concerning individual opinion. I think it is probably this clause which initially scared me off the rest of the proposal. I think it sets a dangerous precedent to censor individual (i.e. not national, or even corporate) websites, etc. If the government can do so in this situation, what other circumstances will then be open to further censorship? Why shouldn't I be able to say on my website, or my forum, what I think about a particular trial? And if I can't, am I allowed to tell people? Talk about the case even? Where do you draw the line? At present, I think the line is drawn in the wrong place- and limits the freedom of speech of the individual. As opposed to the media/corporate world.

i am in support of this, both IC and OOC. it sometimes ticks me off when you get a situation of 'trial by media' because most of the time, there will be some moral or political slant put on it. judges are the ones who are put in the postion to judge, and there is a right to a fair trial, being judged by a jury of their peers. anything that can interfere with this process, such as outside information through media sources, to me does not make it a fair trial. as i said previously in another thread on something similar, criminal matters should be left to police and the judicial system, and, besides reporting the facts on the case, the media should stay out

[OOC] I don't believe I've referred to the laws in my NS nation. If anything I was referring to the real life situation as I understand it in my country. While there are some laws designed to protect those in trial (e.g. off the top of my head, no printing the names/identities of those on trial under the age of 16 etc), there is not such severe regulations on what is said on the trial itself. I don't think...


I based these laws on the UK - mostly. It is (in my view) one of the best systems in the world. The press is not permitted to make observations, or anything other than report what happens in the trial, and it is a remarkably fair system.



[IC] However, I have reviewed your proposal and your arguments concering it, and believe I could quite happily live with it if one alteration was made, which I will come back to. I realise that my point about miscarriages of justice, etc, and the need for them to be realised, could always come about through an appeal after the initial trial.
[/QUOTE]

That's what I was thinking. And also that if you permit the press to interfere with the trial, then miscarriages of justice for the more "spectacular" crimes - child murder and so forth - are even more likely because of the nature of human response to these crimes.


This is no longer concerning the media. This is now concerning individual opinion. I think it is probably this clause which initially scared me off the rest of the proposal. I think it sets a dangerous precedent to censor individual (i.e. not national, or even corporate) websites, etc.


I guess it is a matter of perspective. I will explain why in a moment....


If the government


It's important to note it is NOT the government, but the judge who is presiding over the trial, and only over matters relating to that trial. The government has no power under this proposal.


can do so in this situation, what other circumstances will then be open to further censorship? Why shouldn't I be able to say on my website, or my forum, what I think about a particular trial? And if I can't, am I allowed to tell people? Talk about the case even? Where do you draw the line? At present, I think the line is drawn in the wrong place- and limits the freedom of speech of the individual. As opposed to the media/corporate world.

This is why it is not mandatory. But say for example a member of the government, or a member of the press, has a personal website. Now if you read on an "average" person's website that they think Mr Jones is guilty, you might not give it much credence. But what if you read it on the website of President Smith that Mr Jones is guilty? It is a personal website, and the disclaimer makes it clear he is talking as a person, not as president. But he is still President and he is still saying Mr Jones is guilty.

Or if a legal discussion board that is frequented by lawyers and former judges and so forth.... I know that all people are equal, but you can't deny that the opinion of some people carries more weight than the opinion of others in certain circumstances.


I think that the judge should be permitted to review what is being written, if it is brought to his attention, and ask for it to be removed if he feels it will compromise that specific case. The judge will not be permitted to remove stuff that is not connected to the case, the government has no power to do anything with this, and once the trial is over, the posts can be restored.

I realise that this is the most questionable of the rules, and if it is going to cause a problem I can remove it, but given the power of the web, and the possibility that enough people could mount a campaign to influence any jury members without it appearing obvious that that is the case, that maybe the web should also be subject to the ruling of the judge.

But if it is a problem I guess I can either tone it down or remove it.

Second draft, and final pending submission


Name : Sub-Judice
Category : Moral Deceny
Strength : Significant to Strong
Proposed By : well - me I suppose.

Description :

NOTING that the UN supports the concept of Fair Trials (#two resolutions),

NOTING the resolution regarding the Freedom of The Press (#one resolution),

ACCEPTING that people are only human (mortal?) and are influenced by the media whether they realise it or not,

STATING that this can lead to bias in a trial, making it less than fair,

STATES that

1) Once a person (or persons) is bound over for trial (arraigned) the media will be forbidden from publshing anything on any aspect of the trial until it starts,
2) Once a trial has begun, the media may only report what is said in court while the jury is present,
3) No person involved with the trial maybe approached by the media for any purpose while the trial is continuing,
4) The media is forbidden from publishing anything that the judge involved in the trial has deemed in admissible,
5) Even after the trial has concluded, the media may not approach the jury for comment or interview, and the names of the jury can not be published under any circumstances.

Any media source found in violation of these rules will be charged with contempt of court and treated appropriately.

Note : The media refers to any source of news, be it television, radio, newspapers, magazines, internet sites and so forth.
Note : Between the binding over for trial and the announcement of the verdict, no media source is permitted to print opinion regarding the case.
Note : The judge who is overseeing the trial (or his agents) will be permitted to ask for the removal of any item, from any media source, they feel is in violation of this resolution, providing they can show cause for the removal.


I have modified the clause about removing stuff from websites, but I still feel it is somewhat important. It is now limited to the judge (or someone who works for him like a clerk of the court etc) in charge of the trial to remove stuff that he can show would impact on the trial. So the government can not randomly censor websites for no reason.

Also - if the sex/gender of a person referred to in a resolution can not be determined I tend to use "he" instead of "they" or "he/she" as both of those just look wrong. This is not an attempt to be sexist or imply that only men can oversee trials.


If that clause is going to be a problem I cam remove it completely, but I feel that it would leave a loophole open to bypass this resolution (eg if the editor of "The Valorasa Times" wanted to write that he thought Mr Jones was an evil man who should burn in hell, he couldn't do it in his paper, but he could just stick it on a website somewhere which would have more or less the same effect).

Anyway - if there are no more comments

1) Once a person (or persons) is bound over for trial (arraigned) the media will be forbidden from publshing anything on any aspect of the trial until it startsno aspect? you mean they can't tell the name of the criminal, the crime he may did, the arguments of the sides, and the opinions about the trial?
2) Once a trial has begun, the media may only report what is said in court while the jury is present,why they can't clearified the subject to the readers, despite copy the protocol of the court?
3) No person involved with the trial maybe approached by the media for any purpose while the trial is continuing,so if famous actor is witness, he can't be in his TV show? it will ruin innocent man's life.
4) The media is forbidden from publishing anything that the judge involved in the trial has deemed in admissible,since it reasonable that he will decide that the yacht he got from the criminal, deemed as admissible (because he can), your proposal support corruption, on the back of the freedom of press.
5) Even after the trial has concluded, the media may not approach the jury for comment or interview, and the names of the jury can not be published under any circumstances.why? the jury is part of the system and they should explain why they let mass murderer be free.
Note : Between the binding over for trial and the announcement of the verdict, no media source is permitted to print opinion regarding the case. you got to be kidding. if the media don't tell is opinion, and can't tell all the facts, what will they do. stop writing about crime and corruption?

public trails should be free to public issue, and the press should let the public know. I also think that "Make the trial open to the public and media" (definition of free trial), mean that all the trial should be open to the public.
the goal of the press is to creatisize the courts, the goverment, and the parlament. you harm drastically the freedom of prees when you ban her right to tell the public what happened.
if the lawyer of the criminal will lie to the jury, and the press serch and discover it, I think they had to tell it, and to effect the jury opinions.
in addition (I will hate myself later), I don't see why that is issue for the UN.

no aspect? you mean they can't tell the name of the criminal, the crime he may did, the arguments of the sides, and the opinions about the trial?


Yes. That is exactly what I mean. More or less. They can say that Mr Jones has been bound over for trial on the count of murdering Mrs Jones, but that is it. They can't report any evidence, and they REALLY can't report any opinions. Otherwise anyone who might end up serving on the jury could have their opinion swayed by something other than what is said in court, which makes the whole idea of a trial pointless.


why they can't clearified the subject to the readers, despite copy the protocol of the court?


I really have no idea what you mean by this. What I meant was the media can report the evidence as it is given in court, the events that happen in the court when the jury is present (for example "people in the public gallary sobbed as a video of the murder victim was played") but not any legal arguement that takes place while the jury is not present (for example "the prosecution wanted the signed murder confession admitted to evidence, but the judge ruled it was inadmissable due to a spelling mistake" - if this was published then the jury would know about something the judge has ruled should have no part in the evidence and not be a part of the trial. Again this will influence the jury in their decision when it shouldn't)


so if famous actor is witness, he can't be in his TV show? it will ruin innocent man's life.


Not exactly. If Mr Jones is accused of (say) shoplifting, he can still take part in tv shows and so on. However HE CAN NOT give interviews about the case to anyone, and he can not make reference to the case in anything he does. Because this could influence the jury based on something that is not part of the court case.
If Mr Jones has been arrested for rape, murder, terrorism etc then is is highly unlikely he will not be permitted out of jail anyway :}


since it reasonable that he will decide that the yacht he got from the criminal, deemed as admissible (because he can), your proposal support corruption, on the back of the freedom of press.


Sorry - that should read "deemed as inadmissible" - ie something the judge had ruled can not be a part of the trial. I will correct that before I submit it.
What I meant was that if the judge has ruled that documents pertaining to the case are not admissible as evidence, the media are not permitted to reproduce these documents and their contents, as that would be an attempt to sway the jury based on evidence that is not relevent.
(I really did mean "inadmissble" and not "in admissible" - I will correct it)


why? the jury is part of the system and they should explain why they let mass murderer be free.


Yeah - but what if they convict him, and the family of the mass murderer find out the names of those who served on the jury. Then they go after them and kill each and every one of them.
And what if seven of them (assuming its a 12 person jury) vote for setting him free, and then name the names of the five who think he should be sent down? You don't think that puts those five in serious danger?


you got to be kidding. if the media don't tell is opinion, and can't tell all the facts, what will they do. stop writing about crime and corruption?


Huh? So you are on trial for murder, and you have no problem with every newspaper, every tv station, every radio station and magazine and internet site saying "HE IS GUILTY - HANG THE SCOUNDREL" for the five months leading up to the actual trial? You don't think it would sway the jury and make the idea of a fair trial impossible to achieve?



public trails should be free to public issue, and the press should let the public know. I also think that "Make the trial open to the public and media" (definition of free trial), mean that all the trial should be open to the public.
the goal of the press is to creatisize the courts, the goverment, and the parlament. you harm drastically the freedom of prees when you ban her right to tell the public what happened.


I am not suggesting the media are banned from the trial. I am just suggesting that to ensure the fairness they can only report what goes on during the trial, not engage in random speculation about the outcome and not attempt to sway the jury to one view or another before any of the evidence is heard.
The press can report EVERYTHING that is given in evidence, everything that is said in evidence and everything that the judge and advocates say, but only when the jury hears it to.

The trial will be open to the public, and to the media. But given the power of the media to influence people's opinions, I think it is not unreasonable to have limits on what they are permitted to do while the trial is on going.


if the lawyer of the criminal will lie to the jury, and the press serch and discover it, I think they had to tell it, and to effect the jury opinions.
in addition (I will hate myself later),

If the lawyer has lied, or the criminal has lied, and it is discovered, then why can it not be given in evidence? Why must be done outside of the influence of the court? Why can the press not tell the judge about the lie and the judge can act on it?
And what if the press say it was a lie (because they want to believe it was) and it turns out it was the truth, but they don't bother to deal with that part? The press could lie themselves and then issue a retraction two months down the line after the trial is over.


I don't see why that is issue for the UN.


The UN has two definitions of Fair Trials on it's books already. I think that that indicates they see the fair application and process of justice as something that it is of concern to the UN. And if the press is free to subvert justice as it pleases, then no trial can ever be truly fair.

Name : Sub-Judice
Category : Moral Deceny
Strength : Significant to Strong
Proposed By : well - me I suppose.

Description :

NOTING that the UN supports the concept of Fair Trials ("Fair Trial", "Due Process" and "Definition of a Fair Trial"),

NOTING the resolution regarding the Freedom of The Press ("Freedom Of Press"),

ACCEPTING that people are generally influenced by the media whether they realise it or not,

STATING that this can lead to bias in a trial, making it less than fair,

STATES that

1) Once a person (or persons) is bound over for trial the media will be forbidden from publshing anything on any aspect of the trial until it starts,
2) Once a trial has begun, the media may only report what is said in court while the jury is present,
3) No person involved with the trial maybe approached by the media for any purpose while the trial is continuing,
4) The media is forbidden from publishing anything that the judge involved in the trial has deemed as inadmissible,
5) Even after the trial has concluded, the media may not approach the jury for comment or interview, and the names of the jury can not be published under any circumstances.

Any media source found in violation of these rules will be charged with contempt of court and treated appropriately.

Note : The media refers to any source of news, be it television, radio, newspapers, magazines, internet sites and so forth.
Note : Between the binding over for trial and the announcement of the verdict, no media source is permitted to print opinion regarding the case.
Note : The judge who is overseeing the trial (or his agents) will be permitted to ask for the removal of any item, from any media source, they feel is in violation of this resolution, providing they can show cause for the removal.


Edited for a few spelling things, some grammar things, the names of the resolutions and a truly impressive typing error that totally reversed the meaning of (4) (modified from "in admissible" to "inadmissible" after Green Israel pointed out the problem)

if this makes it to a vote (which would be stupid if it doesnt), we will be voting for it. it is a good piece of legislation, and anyone opposed to it on the basis of freedom of the press, they should realise that this is in the intrest of having a fair trial, especially when there could be the case of someone who is innocent and is aquitted or found guilty due to outside evidence, and their name is dragged through the proverbial mud. there are huge social implications for individuals, such as those wrongly accused of murder or pedophelia, because though they might be innocent, and the courts find them innocent, if people in their area find out stuff through the press that is wrong, those individuals can be outcast whilst doing nothing wrong

if this makes it to a vote (which would be stupid if it doesnt), we will be voting for it. it is a good piece of legislation, and anyone opposed to it on the basis of freedom of the press, they should realise that this is in the intrest of having a fair trial, especially when there could be the case of someone who is innocent and is aquitted or found guilty due to outside evidence, and their name is dragged through the proverbial mud. there are huge social implications for individuals, such as those wrongly accused of murder or pedophelia, because though they might be innocent, and the courts find them innocent, if people in their area find out stuff through the press that is wrong, those individuals can be outcast whilst doing nothing wrong

I think the biggest problem is people won't understand it. Already two or three people have said that this makes trials private and bans all media from all trials, which it patently doesn't.

If I could suggest a new game play thing, I would suggest being permitted to add comments to submitted proposals, and a link to the forum to indicate previous discussions (if any) so that things like this don't happen. Still - it should be fun to try :}

"Judice"?

"Judice"?
Presumably something relating to 'judicial', rather than 'justice'.

Sub judice is latin for "Before the court".

In legalese,

sub judice

adjective {after verb} LEGAL

being studied or decided in a law court at the present time:

- In Britain, cases which are sub judice cannot be publicly discussed in the media.

See - I am not making all this up!

I think this is a great proposal, and would definitely support it. Yes, a government with something to hide will abuse it, but there anre many things a gov't can do to hide. Unless the country is outrageously crazy, they wouldn't abuse the power.

Unless the country is outrageously crazy, they wouldn't abuse the power.
You're new here. This sense of optimism and trust .... it'll pass.

:p

OOC: i would be vehemently opposed to this, and probably take part in a goodly number of protests and demonstrations.

IC: the nation of Crispy Fried Chicken will support this proposal, largely because we feel that limiting the freedom of the press is a very good thing, and has aided us greatly in the past. This will also make it easier for me, the loving dictator, to make some of my political enemies disappe......errr... i mean... this will make it easier for a fair trial to be granted to all citizens.

OOC: i would be vehemently opposed to this, and probably take part in a goodly number of protests and demonstrations.

OOC: i am very interested to hear why you would be opposed to this

I am, at the moment, in a state of despair.

THIS WILL NOT INTERFERE IN THE FREEDOM OF THE PRESS.

It will not stop them covering trials and reporting evidence. It will not stop them from saying "Mr Jones then denied that he murdered those three puppies". It will not stop them saying "Mr Jones was convicted of horse-fondling today". It will not stop trials being open to the public. It will not stop people being able to attend trials. There will be no way for governments to abuse this to hold secret trials that no one knows about. It will not permit governments to get rid of people without the public noticing. It will not violate the THREE fair trial resolutions that have already passed. It will not - in short - lead to the end of freedom and democracy as we know it.

It will prevent trial by media. It will prevent the press from finding someone guilty before the trial has actually started. It will prevent the general public from reading half-truths, lies and opinions from the press about someone who's life may be at stake. It will stop the press from abusing the power they have to send innocent men to jail or the chair. It will not permit the media to turn the jury against someone who is currently on trial. In short it will ensure that the idea of a fair trial, that the UN appears to believe in, will actually be possible instead of just the fantasy that currently exists at the moment.

I have grown up knowing about these laws (I think my parents explained then when I was around 10 or 11) and I can't imagine how anyone who doesn't have these laws in their nation gets a free and fair trial. And I can't begin to understand how the idea behind these laws, and the implementation of these laws is so hard to grasp for everyone else.

Yes. That is exactly what I mean. More or less. They can say that Mr Jones has been bound over for trial on the count of murdering Mrs Jones, but that is it.OK, I just want to ensure that this facts could shown to the public.
They can't report any evidence, and they REALLY can't report any opinions. Otherwise anyone who might end up serving on the jury could have their opinion swayed by something other than what is said in court, which makes the whole idea of a trial pointless.that is the problem of the jury system. I even don't sure that system is neccesery by the laws of the UN, since the free trial resolution didn't write clearly that hury mast be on every trial. they just tell what that jury supposed to be. and if I have no jury, I don't had to think about the jury's problems.
even if I had jury, I think I let them be on free-media hotel, for the time of the trial, because justice is priceless. however I don't support un-neccesery harming in rights for ensuring other rights.


I really have no idea what you mean by this. What I meant was the media can report the evidence as it is given in court, the events that happen in the court when the jury is present (for example "people in the public gallary sobbed as a video of the murder victim was played") but not any legal arguement that takes place while the jury is not present (for example "the prosecution wanted the signed murder confession admitted to evidence, but the judge ruled it was inadmissable due to a spelling mistake" - if this was published then the jury would know about something the judge has ruled should have no part in the evidence and not be a part of the trial. Again this will influence the jury in their decision when it shouldn't)I mean protocol of the court- the talks and acts while the trial (Mr. smith: I didn't do it ; lawyer: objection!).
I just think this is useless, that all the media could tell only the same old things, while any changing of the formal facts, would seen as opinion, and therefore can't be shown.


Not exactly. If Mr Jones is accused of (say) shoplifting, he can still take part in tv shows and so on. However HE CAN NOT give interviews about the case to anyone, and he can not make reference to the case in anything he does. Because this could influence the jury based on something that is not part of the court case.
If Mr Jones has been arrested for rape, murder, terrorism etc then is is highly unlikely he will not be permitted out of jail anyway :}in the end you will ban trial and police shows, because they have lot of refrences to crime (or fun shows as Fictive - Conan O`brien, who based on actually).
what will be shown in the madia if you restrict so hard the news, drama, and satyr? only kids shows?


Sorry - that should read "deemed as inadmissible" - ie something the judge had ruled can not be a part of the trial. I will correct that before I submit it.
What I meant was that if the judge has ruled that documents pertaining to the case are not admissible as evidence, the media are not permitted to reproduce these documents and their contents, as that would be an attempt to sway the jury based on evidence that is not relevent.
(I really did mean "inadmissble" and not "in admissible" - I will correct it)well the same problem is still there.
th judge can decide that all the evidences that show clearly the innocenty of the accused are inadmissble, and the media will be silence.
he will decide that the money he get from the lawyer is inadmissible, but the media can't say a word.
in the end, the jury will act by the wrong evidence and give the judge the decision he wanted (while the justice is on the garbage can), but the media can't say anything about the case.
it is so comfortable (and corrupt), that judge or goverment could decide what the press will say. the press main goal is to criticize the autorities, and I can't see it happened while everybody can say what the press could (or couldn't) show. nothing good ever happened from making something out of the hands of the criticizing.
Yeah - but what if they convict him, and the family of the mass murderer find out the names of those who served on the jury. Then they go after them and kill each and every one of them.
And what if seven of them (assuming its a 12 person jury) vote for setting him free, and then name the names of the five who think he should be sent down? You don't think that puts those five in serious danger?I guess something wrong in your judical system (or the educational one). if people try to influence violencely anout the judical persons, it mean they don't observe the rule of the law. it is the "slippery slope" case that lead to murder of judges, parlament men, and ministeries.
the answer to that, can't be hiding because you know the criminal will kill you. the answer is to fight the crime and make the criminals think twice before they trying to kill somebody (either by great punishments, or by good rehibilition system).
I also think that because jury member are mostly regular citizens, the criminals can't get anything from murdering them, but revenge. they had no reason to make it if they know that would be the last thing they will do in their free lives.

Huh? So you are on trial for murder, and you have no problem with every newspaper, every tv station, every radio station and magazine and internet site saying "HE IS GUILTY - HANG THE SCOUNDREL" for the five months leading up to the actual trial? You don't think it would sway the jury and make the idea of a fair trial impossible to achieve? sure, I will have problems with the thing that my name is ruin (and probalably my family life is ruin, too). but I will also have problem with the fact, I'm in prison, and the fact I going to trial about murder. it still don't mean I will want the media can't say anything, beacuse I believe that fair trial is best achieved with strong media that ensure the trial is really fair.
in addition, fair media will let me show my argument, equal to the other arguments (don't tell me media can't be fair, that argument could be the same about fair trial).




I am not suggesting the media are banned from the trial. I am just suggesting that to ensure the fairness they can only report what goes on during the trial, not engage in random speculation about the outcome and not attempt to sway the jury to one view or another before any of the evidence is heard.I realize what you suggesting. you suggesting that the media should loose his ability to criticize the judical system, and the only view that will shown to the jury is the judge view. you suggest to take from the people every information that the judges don't want they will have about the judical system (stupidity bring power). you suggest that the citizens will can't develope strong world view, because they can't hear opinions in the media.
I still against what you suggesting.
The press can report EVERYTHING that is given in evidence, everything that is said in evidence and everything that the judge and advocates say, but only when the jury hears it to.in other words, everything that the judge want the people know. it just like "you could eat anything that is apple".

The trial will be open to the public, and to the media. But given the power of the media to influence people's opinions, I think it is not unreasonable to have limits on what they are permitted to do while the trial is on going.in the current wording you give too much power to the judges, and since the judical system is part of the autorities, it could lead for dictatorship which is much worse.



If the lawyer has lied, or the criminal has lied, and it is discovered, then why can it not be given in evidence? Why must be done outside of the influence of the court? Why can the press not tell the judge about the lie and the judge can act on it?because the judge could decide that this is deemed as inadmissible, and harm the right of fair trial?
And what if the press say it was a lie (because they want to believe it was) and it turns out it was the truth, but they don't bother to deal with that part? The press could lie themselves and then issue a retraction two months down the line after the trial is over. if the press lied, there are enough ways to suit them and make them pay for their lie (blasphemy, libelling, and such). however, if the judge is corrupt and you can't say that, the judge is safe from counter-acts.



The UN has two definitions of Fair Trials on it's books already. I think that that indicates they see the fair application and process of justice as something that it is of concern to the UN. And if the press is free to subvert justice as it pleases, then no trial can ever be truly fair.the bad part is, you make the judge free to subvert justice as he pleases, and that way the trial fairness are in much bigger problem.
also, I want to say that I have understood the two definitions of free trial, that already in the books. I know their importance in keeping "the right of free trial". however, your proposal harm "the freedom of information" of all the citizens, in excuse it will be for "the right of fair trial", while open the system to corruptness, that harm "the right of fair trial", too.
in the end of the day, your proposal only put the judical system out of the borders of criticizism and law, and the media become the prisoner of the judges.

I am, at the moment, in a state of despair.

THIS WILL NOT INTERFERE IN THE FREEDOM OF THE PRESS.every cenzorship harm the freedom of press.

It will not stop them covering trials and reporting evidence. It will not stop them from saying "Mr Jones then denied that he murdered those three puppies". It will not stop them saying "Mr Jones was convicted of horse-fondling today".it will if the judge deemed it as inadmissible evidence.
It will not stop trials being open to the public. It will not stop people being able to attend trials.no, but it harm their right to know what happened outside the court (as deals, bribe, corruptness, and many evidences that deemed as inadmissible by the judge only because his wish).
There will be no way for governments to abuse this to hold secret trials that no one knows about.they don't need that. they just make the judge rid of the evidences that show the truth, because they deemed as inadmissible.
It will not permit governments to get rid of people without the public noticing.the public will only notice that the jury get the right decision based on the evidences it saw. however, they wouldn't notice that many evidences deemed as inadmissible outside the court.
maybe not, but it ruin the judical system anyway.
[quote]It will not - in short - lead to the end of freedom and democracy as we know it.may I already said "slippery slope"?

It will prevent trial by media. It will prevent the press from finding someone guilty before the trial has actually started.no, It will prevent from the public their "right to know".
It will prevent the general public from reading half-truths, lies and opinions from the press about someone who's life may be at stake.no, it will prevent the public know the infomation the judge prefer they can't get.
It will stop the press from abusing the power they have to send innocent men to jail or the chair.but the judge still could do the same without criticizm.
still, the judge could do the same, without any criticizm.
[quote]In short it will ensure that the idea of a fair trial, that the UN appears to believe in, will actually be possible instead of just the fantasy that currently exists at the moment.in short, it make the judges the most powerful authority in the countrey, since nobody could criticize their acts. in long-term the countrey leader could base his dictatorship on the supporting of the judges.

I have grown up knowing about these laws (I think my parents explained then when I was around 10 or 11) and I can't imagine how anyone who doesn't have these laws in their nation gets a free and fair trial. And I can't begin to understand how the idea behind these laws, and the implementation of these laws is so hard to grasp for everyone else.I know other laws, as no jury, and strong media that criticize the actions of the autorities, and it had less ways to abuse it than that law.
if the judge is the only one that can decide what the trial decision will be it ensure professional work (without citizens from the near street that know nothing about the law system). if he wrong, or made un-justice decision, the media is there to let the public know, and to make the judge do better job in the next time. however, the public know about the trials, and many times he used it to test his morals and beliefs by arguments on the subject.

I have read the two previous posts, and either you don't get what I am trying to do, or you don't want to get it because you are trying to annoy me.

Nothing you have said makes any sense. If the judge is going to be so obviously biased, then why would that be a fair trial?

Seriously - you have either grossly misunderstood what I am saying, or you just don't understand what justice is.

I have read the two previous posts, and either you don't get what I am trying to do, or you don't want to get it because you are trying to annoy me. I sorry if that annoy you, but I think that I get what you trying to do.

Nothing you have said makes any sense. If the judge is going to be so obviously biased, then why would that be a fair trial?that what I said. obviously biased judged ruin the right to fair trial. I think that since the world isn't perfect those judges are exist. therefore the countrey should defend herself from those judges.
as I concerned, your proposal give those judges the power to be away from the hands of the criticizm (by the public or the media), and therefore nothing would harm them.

Seriously - you have either grossly misunderstood what I am saying, or you just don't understand what justice is.I know what justice is. I know that the justice should be defended by the law. I know that justice is best acheived when there is democratic factors as strong press, limitation of the authorities, and public awareness (best developed by the "freedom of information", and the media).
your proposal trying to harm those things, and I see it as harm on the justice.
I think your idea is good, but he too much open to abuse, and the goal behind him could acheived only when the judges are saints and angels. however, you take from the public the possibility to ensure that they really are saints and angels, so if the judges will be bribe-lover criminals you will never notice it by your proposal.

I sorry if that annoy you, but I think that I get what you trying to do.


Eh.


that what I said. obviously biased judged ruin the right to fair trial. I think that since the world isn't perfect those judges are exist. therefore the countrey should defend herself from those judges.
as I concerned, your proposal give those judges the power to be away from the hands of the criticizm (by the public or the media), and therefore nothing would harm them.


But what if - and this is just a suggestion - the press want to imply the judge is biased to get the case thrown out of court? The press could print whatever it wants - that the judge got money, that the judge knows the defendent - and the entire case could be ruined with no real comeback, cause the press could just say "oh - sorry. We made a mistake" after the event.

If the press really believe there is evidence the judge is biased, they could take it to another judge, or to the (what in the uk is called) The Crown Prosecution Service. They can do a lot of things rather than just printing a story.

Also - if the juge is being bribed, there is no way he is going to announce that fact and then deem it inadmissble. And if the prosecution or defence suggest that fact, then the trial would most likely be stopped to investigate it, or declared a mistrial and held again under another judge.


I know what justice is. I know that the justice should be defended by the law. I know that justice is best acheived when there is democratic factors as strong press, limitation of the authorities, and public awareness (best developed by the "freedom of information", and the media).
your proposal trying to harm those things, and I see it as harm on the justice.
I think your idea is good, but he too much open to abuse, and the goal behind him could acheived only when the judges are saints and angels. however, you take from the public the possibility to ensure that they really are saints and angels, so if the judges will be bribe-lover criminals you will never notice it by your proposal.

I am not trying to ahrm those things. I am trying to stop someone being judge by the press instead of by the judicial system.
If a judge is being bribed, it can be investigated by the authorities, and not splashed all over the front page of every paper. Because what if it turns out that the journalist who thought the judge being bribed was wrong? They have acted as judge and jury over the judge (so to speak) without the bother of actually letting the judge hear the evidence. So not only have you ruined one man's career by calling him corrupt (with no bother of finding out whether that is the case or not) you have also screwed over a trial because it would have to be stopped and then restarted under someone else.


The media is not banned from trials. They can not, however, indulge in random speculation which will only serve to subvert the justice system you claim to be defending. I have no idea why you can't see this, but take heart in the fact that you do not appear to be the only person who doesn't see that this will benifit justice instead of destroying it.

Imagine that in a hypothetical country called "The United States of America" (forgive me for choosing something so obviously based on my own country's name), a hypothetical President named Bill Clinton were accused of sexual harassment by a hypothetical employee named Paula Jones.

How would this proposal, if in force, affect global press coverage of this event and/or civic life in this fictitious country, especially if the trial became politicized (an unlikely event, to be sure, but this is a thought experiment) and went on for a number of years, including at least one election cycle?

But what if - and this is just a suggestion - the press want to imply the judge is biased to get the case thrown out of court? The press could print whatever it wants - that the judge got money, that the judge knows the defendent - and the entire case could be ruined with no real comeback, cause the press could just say "oh - sorry. We made a mistake" after the event.as I said, there is laws against blasphemy, libelling, and such. if some newspaper do it, it may work in the first time, but in the end they will have to pay hugh amount of money to the judge and the countrey, and they may not do it again. however, in your proposal nothing can do against biased judge, since every thing about the trial should came to him first, and he had no good reasons to let the media tell his crimes.
also, I think that the thing I said about strong press, is right to this case, too. the press system had many newspapers and TV shows inside, and that ensure that any opinion had chance to be expressed, such opinions of other newspaper against the newspaper that lied.
If the press really believe there is evidence the judge is biased, they could take it to another judge, or to the (what in the uk is called) The Crown Prosecution Service. They can do a lot of things rather than just printing a story.not really. as you formerly said, they should bring it to the present judge in the trial, and he wouldn't let them do it.

Also - if the juge is being bribed, there is no way he is going to announce that fact and then deem it inadmissble. And if the prosecution or defence suggest that fact, then the trial would most likely be stopped to investigate it, or declared a mistrial and held again under another judge.not exactly. as your proposal said every evidence and thing that could effect the trial should shown to the judge, before they tell it in the court (or the jury will heard the inadmissible evidences, and consider them, despite the wish of the judge). if the judge get evidences that show something he don't want to be shown, he could (by the current wording) deemed it as inadmissible, and make that disappear from the media forever (since you didn't had court of appeal to the media, in your proposal).



I am not trying to harm those things. I am trying to stop someone being judge by the press instead of by the judicial system. as I said this is the problem of the jury system. without jury, the press had no power to judge the criminals.
If a judge is being bribed, it can be investigated by the authorities, and not splashed all over the front page of every paper.what about the "freedom of information"? the citizens has the right to know how much their trial is "fair". in addition, most of the authorities act better and faster when they know the press could criticize them. there are many cases I know, that the authorities wasn't make anything, until it came for the media.
Because what if it turns out that the journalist who thought the judge being bribed was wrong? They have acted as judge and jury over the judge (so to speak) without the bother of actually letting the judge hear the evidence. So not only have you ruined one man's career by calling him corrupt (with no bother of finding out whether that is the case or not) you have also screwed over a trial because it would have to be stopped and then restarted under someone else. as I said the judical system had better ways to deal with libelling and blasephemy, than full cenzorship.


The media is not banned from trials. They can not, however, indulge in random speculation which will only serve to subvert the justice system you claim to be defending.what if your goverment would do as same and ban the press from "indulge in random speculation" on the economical or military acts, because of the safety of the public or such? no more comments about the problems that war or high-pollution factories could make, no more opinions about the goverment acts, no more criticizm. the public will always choose the same people from the same party, because they don't know anything about the govermental acts, but the things the goverments could know. that the press you want?
what you propose is the same, only it is about the judical system. the press can't criticize judges or have opinions about the judical system, and the public will be sure that the judges never wrong (only they are, but the press can't tell it).
I have no idea why you can't see this, but take heart in the fact that you do not appear to be the only person who doesn't see that this will benifit justice instead of destroying it.maybe because I don't prisoner of the concept of jury, and I don't see why make such bad body, that require to take more rights from the people, without enough benfits

I was going to be picky and point out that the whole resolution concerns trial by jury, and it is conceivable that a fair trial might be achieved without a jury. However, when I finally looked up your references, I found that NS has actually defined Fair Trial as involving a jury. So much for pickiness. (And I read through to P10 for that definition, and P13 for the Free Press one. Whew. I think I deserve a lollipop.)

You've said, I think, that you're trying to bring in an approximation of the rules that govern court reporting in Britain. I wouldn't argue against that, since the UK press seems perfectly able to work around them when necessary.

However, I'm still balking at this one:

1) Once a person (or persons) is bound over for trial (arraigned) the media will be forbidden from publishing anything on any aspect of the trial until it starts ... (My itals)

I think this may be why some folk have objected that the resolution reduces government transparency. This would seem to prevent the press from saying where and when the trial will be held. (Midnight, in the basement of the Ministry of Internal Security?) If the public doesn't know that, it can't attend, and so can't see whether the trial is fair or not.

Further, wouldn't this prevent the press from saying, pre-trial, what the trial is about? So "the trial of a man charged with three counts of murder relating to the deaths of A, B and C, will begin tomorrow at... in ..." is actionable? (I don't know, maybe it is actionable in RL; anyone know?)

Also, it seems to prevent any reporting of previous cases in which a particular judge has presided, any pattern evident in his sentencing, anything about the professional status of the lawyers involved (prosecution by prominent silk Freddie Fiddlebumps, QC: defence by students of the University of Thot, pro bono, under the direction of Professor Theet).

So, could you make that first point less general? It looks as if what you don't want them to publish is anything that might be used in evidence. I understand why you're trying to keep it general; if you get too detailed, then you reach the stage where anything not specifically forbidden is seen as permitted. But if it's too all-encompassing, then people see it as limiting the freedom of the press.

I was going to be picky and point out that the whole resolution concerns trial by jury, and it is conceivable that a fair trial might be achieved without a jury. However, when I finally looked up your references, I found that NS has actually defined Fair Trial as involving a jury. So much for pickiness. (And I read through to P10 for that definition, and P13 for the Free Press one. Whew. I think I deserve a lollipop.)I checked it, too, but I don't think it defining fair trial as involving jury. it only say what the jury should be if he existed.
I used it as loophole to ignore the hury part, because he bring no good.

OOC: i am very interested to hear why you would be opposed to this
OOC: i'll respond to this later today, as i'm about to leave for a few hours, but i figure i should at least give you one reason right now, however trivial it may be: i enjoy watching Court TV when i'm bored.

Imagine that in a hypothetical country called "The United States of America" (forgive me for choosing something so obviously based on my own country's name), a hypothetical President named Bill Clinton were accused of sexual harassment by a hypothetical employee named Paula Jones.

How would this proposal, if in force, affect global press coverage of this event and/or civic life in this fictitious country, especially if the trial became politicized (an unlikely event, to be sure, but this is a thought experiment) and went on for a number of years, including at least one election cycle?

Now imagine this President had given evidence under oath, and that that evidence could be reported since it was given before the jury (or if there was no jury, it was given in open court). Imagine that the evidence could be reported and sent round the world, even if this was in effect because it is evidence given in open court.

Just imagine how little this proposal would apply to this situation and how much you are wrong about what you are saying.

as I said, there is laws against blasphemy, libelling, and such. if some newspaper do it, it may work in the first time, but in the end they will have to pay hugh amount of money to the judge and the countrey, and they may not do it again. however, in your proposal nothing can do against biased judge, since every thing about the trial should came to him first, and he had no good reasons to let the media tell his crimes.
also, I think that the thing I said about strong press, is right to this case, too. the press system had many newspapers and TV shows inside, and that ensure that any opinion had chance to be expressed, such opinions of other newspaper against the newspaper that lied.


So now not content with having the press talking about whether someone is innocent or guilty and conducting a witch-hunt in the press, you are going to involve the judge in the witch-hunt as well? I mean why bother having a judiciary when everything is being conducted in the press? Why not just have opinion polls and execute people based on those? It would save a lot of money and then you wouldn't have to worry about corrupt judges.


not really. as you formerly said, they should bring it to the present judge in the trial, and he wouldn't let them do it.


Oh for the love of the Lords. The evidence would not be taken to the judge, it would be taken to the Crown Prosecution Service (in the UK) or the police. The police could then investigate it without having to bring the judge in to it. The judge would clearly not be permitted to say "you can't investigate me for fraud" or the like, because that would be - no offecne - stupid beyond belief.


not exactly. as your proposal said every evidence and thing that could effect the trial should shown to the judge, before they tell it in the court (or the jury will heard the inadmissible evidences, and consider them, despite the wish of the judge). if the judge get evidences that show something he don't want to be shown, he could (by the current wording) deemed it as inadmissible, and make that disappear from the media forever (since you didn't had court of appeal to the media, in your proposal).


Yeah - but the judge is not the only person who will know about this evidence. The prosecution and defence will know about it as well, as will the clerk of the court and the person taking the transcript. So if it turns out the judge has deemed it as inadmissble when it should have been admitted, then they can lodge an appeal. Further more once the trial is over - and the verdict has been given - the media are free to publish what they like because it can not possibly interfere with the outcome of the trial. So if they want to publish all the documents that the judge deemed inadmissble, they can.


as I said this is the problem of the jury system. without jury, the press had no power to judge the criminals.


Well DUH!!! That's the whole point of this proposal - to keep justice in the hands of an unbiased, independent system. Not to let every tom, dick and tori have their say when they might not know anything about the case.


what about the "freedom of information"? the citizens has the right to know how much their trial is "fair". in addition, most of the authorities act better and faster when they know the press could criticize them. there are many cases I know, that the authorities as I said the judical system had better ways to deal with libelling and blasephemy, than full cenzorship.


FULL CENSORSHIP? Have you actually been reading this proposal? Or are you just making things up for the fun of it now? NO WHERE does it say that nothing about the trial can be reported once the trial starts.

Seriously - full censorship?


what if your goverment would do as same and ban the press from "indulge in random speculation" on the economical or military acts, because of the safety of the public or such? no more comments about the problems that war or high-pollution factories could make, no more opinions about the goverment acts, no more criticizm. the public will always choose the same people from the same party, because they don't know anything about the govermental acts, but the things the goverments could know. that the press you want?
what you propose is the same, only it is about the judical system. the press can't criticize judges or have opinions about the judical system, and the public will be sure that the judges never wrong (only they are, but the press can't tell it).


What if they do? That is hardly the fault of this proposal. This just limits what can be printed about a single trial, and gives the power of limitation to the judge involved in that trial. And if you say slippery slope to me I am going to laugh in your face because that is the arguement of someone who has nothing decent to say.


maybe because I don't prisoner of the concept of jury, and I don't see why make such bad body, that require to take more rights from the people, without enough benfits

Yeah - I have no idea what you mean with this. Sorry.

I was going to be picky and point out that the whole resolution concerns trial by jury, and it is conceivable that a fair trial might be achieved without a jury. However, when I finally looked up your references, I found that NS has actually defined Fair Trial as involving a jury. So much for pickiness. (And I read through to P10 for that definition, and P13 for the Free Press one. Whew. I think I deserve a lollipop.)


Go you :}


You've said, I think, that you're trying to bring in an approximation of the rules that govern court reporting in Britain. I wouldn't argue against that, since the UK press seems perfectly able to work around them when necessary.


They really can't. I have yet to see a case where the UK press can report someone as guilty before the trial is concluded and not face contempt of court or other charges.

(OOC - There was a trial about someone cheating on Who Wants To Be A Millionaire. And someone on the radio actually made an off-hand comment about the trial, implying the major was guilty before the trial was over. This person was repremanded fairly harshly because of that one comment, simply because of these laws)


I think this may be why some folk have objected that the resolution reduces government transparency. This would seem to prevent the press from saying where and when the trial will be held. (Midnight, in the basement of the Ministry of Internal Security?) If the public doesn't know that, it can't attend, and so can't see whether the trial is fair or not.


Ok. Maybe I get that. But once the trial starts the press can report about it. So if I am held over for six months, then on March 1st I am brought to trial, the press can say "The Trial of Toriella Thiten started today".

The problem is this - if you allow the press to report such and such a thing - "the body of 12 year old Lucy Jensen was found naked and battered on the railway line, and Mr Smith is being tried for her murder" that could influence someone. So you would have to ensure that the line would be "Mr Smith is being held for the murder of Lucy Jensen" because that is just facts, with no emotion and no opinion put in.


Further, wouldn't this prevent the press from saying, pre-trial, what the trial is about? So "the trial of a man charged with three counts of murder relating to the deaths of A, B and C, will begin tomorrow at... in ..." is actionable? (I don't know, maybe it is actionable in RL; anyone know?)


I don't think that is an issue - when the trial starts the press can report that the trial has started. Before then what does it matter?


Also, it seems to prevent any reporting of previous cases in which a particular judge has presided, any pattern evident in his sentencing, anything about the professional status of the lawyers involved (prosecution by prominent silk Freddie Fiddlebumps, QC: defence by students of the University of Thot, pro bono, under the direction of Professor Theet).


What does it matter? Firstly the judge might not be assigned until the day before the trial. Secondly if you say "The judge has shown a tendency to be lieneint towards those who are truly sorry" would that not alter the way the defence might conduct it's case. Or if you report the judge has shown a hint of racism in the past, would that not alter the jury's perception on the way the judge handles the case?

And regarding the advocates - I think that is not usually published until the start of the trial, partly to stop the press publishing stories about them and also maybe to stop intimidation.


So, could you make that first point less general? It looks as if what you don't want them to publish is anything that might be used in evidence. I understand why you're trying to keep it general; if you get too detailed, then you reach the stage where anything not specifically forbidden is seen as permitted. But if it's too all-encompassing, then people see it as limiting the freedom of the press.

It's not just things in evidence that are the problem. As I gave in the examples above, it would be very easy for the press to write an opinion on the case that would not violate the evidence stuff, and it would be very easy to sway jurours without breaking any laws that might get written in. The only way to ensure that the media can not affect a potential jury in anyway is to not let them publishing anything.

Eg.

I am bound over for trial because they think I murdered my husband. So on the day I am bound over the press can say

"President Thiten was bound over for trial today, charged with murdering her Husband Bob. The trial is due to start in December".

Then - in December (assuming there are no delays) the press can say

"The trial of Toriella Thiten started today. She is accused of murdering her husband Bob. The opening remarks....." and so forth.

What could be required in between? News that I had hanged myself, or that someone else had confessed maybe, but in either of those cases the trial would not take place, so these laws would not apply.

I guess one exception - if I was released on bail halfway through the period between the binding over and the trial.

Howabout "The press may not report anything other than official announcements in relation to the trial" - something like that? So the press are not permitted to publish stories for no reason, but if there is an announcement by the court (or the CPS or the judicial system or whatever - but it has to be from the body that will either preside over the trial or have some official standing in the trial - not the lawyers or the like) then the press can publish it.

Would that work?

Though the risk of a contaminated jury may be a threat to the rights of persons to a fair trial, the undue pressure upon the media is much greater. If your worry is that the jury will hear evidence not presented to them in court, then we believe that it would be much easier to better sequester the jurors than to restrict the media. We must regretably disagree with your proposition.

Yours Sincerely,

Andrius Pettolus,
Legate to the United Nations on Behalf of Praetor Andrianus I of the Holy Republic of Belluelle

Though the risk of a contaminated jury may be a threat to the rights of persons to a fair trial, the undue pressure upon the media is much greater. If your worry is that the jury will hear evidence not presented to them in court, then we believe that it would be much easier to better sequester the jurors than to restrict the media. We must regretably disagree with your proposition.

Yours Sincerely,

Andrius Pettolus,
Legate to the United Nations on Behalf of Praetor Andrianus I of the Holy Republic of Belluelle

So rather than ask the press to show a modicom of restraint you are going to lock up twelve people who have done nothing wrong for maybe five, six months on end?

Good plan!

Now imagine this President had given evidence under oath, and that that evidence could be reported since it was given before the jury (or if there was no jury, it was given in open court). Imagine that the evidence could be reported and sent round the world, even if this was in effect because it is evidence given in open court.

Just imagine how little this proposal would apply to this situation and how much you are wrong about what you are saying.I'm not speaking for or against it. I'm just asking people if they feel comfortable with the results. In this case, the President's defenders and critics would be equally muzzled in their ability to comment on the matter. Is that good for the political process, or bad for it?

In addition, the President's opponent in the intervening election cycle would also be so constrained. Is that a good thing or a bad thing?

Now, let's add a wrinkle. Not that any world leader would do this, but what if this President lied under oath?

I'm not speaking for or against it. I'm just asking people if they feel comfortable with the results. In this case, the President's defenders and critics would be equally muzzled in their ability to comment on the matter. Is that good for the political process, or bad for it?


If neither side can comment, I would say that is good. It will let the facts, as they are reported. speak for themselves.


In addition, the President's opponent in the intervening election cycle would also be so constrained. Is that a good thing or a bad thing?


I think that is also a good thing. Because it means the facts will speak for themselves.

For example - if one of my ministers was charged with something - fraud, misconduct or something - and it went to trial, I would not be permitted to make public statements about this, since it is considered "sub-judice" - a matter that is before the court. I would never even CONSIDER making a statement regarding what my opinion is while the matter is at trial.

And - if you pay attention in the UK - you will notice that vox-pops (where they interview people on the street) are never in relation to someone who is on trial. They don't ask people in the street their opinion and put it on the news because that would be a severe violation of the law.

That is not to say people can't have opinions and discuss them in the pub - they can - but they can't be put on TV for the nation to hear.


Now, let's add a wrinkle. Not that any world leader would do this, but what if this President lied under oath?

To give you another example - say an MP from the UK was accused of sleeping with a prostitute. And that he then paid her off so she wouldn't talk. And say he came to trial and lied under oath about it.

Then say it was found out that he lied under oath, and he went to jail for perjury.

All of the above happened under the rules as I have laid them out, and yet people don't seem to think that justice and so forth is possible if you can't have the press spouting their opinions about everything, whether the opinions have any basis in legal fact or not.

I wrote a long reply and lost it in sending. I'll try again later. In sum, it said OK, but could you change "official" to "procedural"? More later.

To give you another example - say an MP from the UK was accused of sleeping with a prostitute. And that he then paid her off so she wouldn't talk. And say he came to trial and lied under oath about it.Nothing personal, but you're British, right?

What you're suggesting is, as others have pointed out, pretty close to UK law. What I'm doing - as an American - is playing with the idea and seeing it it would have made the mess that was "Monicagate" better or worse. IOW, if the parties are really barbed-wire partisan, and not just prone to throw spitballs and utter catcalls from the backbench, could it be abused to either mess up the party in power or stifle the opposition?

In our Supreme Court, this is the purpose of oral argument: to see if the proposed outcome would tear down the Republic.

For my part, I'm undecided on this.

Nothing personal, but you're British, right?


The prhase well duh! is my first response, but that would be rude. So - yes I am English.


What you're suggesting is, as others have pointed out, pretty close to UK law.


I think it is exactly UK law, except maybe the part about the internet, but only because I was taught about these laws before the net was born.


What I'm doing - as an American - is playing with the idea and seeing it it would have made the mess that was "Monicagate" better or worse. IOW, if the parties are really barbed-wire partisan, and not just prone to throw spitballs and utter catcalls from the backbench, could it be abused to either mess up the party in power or stifle the opposition?


As opposed to what happened? As opposed to what is happened in the OJ case?

I think that if you limit what people can say on the record to only the facts of the case, then it makes for a much fairer case all round. Yeah - it would put Jay Leno out of a job for most of the time, but is that not a price worth paying for true justice, and not trial by media?


In our Supreme Court, this is the purpose of oral argument: to see if the proposed outcome would tear down the Republic.


I get that. And given that the UK has not collapsed under this system, I think that the UN can survive it. Whether the USA could - that's a whole other issue, but not one that the NSUN needs to concern itself with :}


For my part, I'm undecided on this.

Fair enough.

My biggest problem with this proposal is not allowing publications of opinions. I don't mind being unable to publish things deemed inadmissable, but opinions are not something that should be regulated. If someone is unable to understand the difference between opinion and fact, should they be deciding a person's fate?

They really can't. I have yet to see a case where the UK press can report someone as guilty before the trial is concluded and not face contempt of court or other charges ...

I know; I meant that the UK press seems to be able to work within the laws without any feeling of restriction. In Australia (and in UK?), media organisations have been fined massively for such things as reporting the name of an over-18 defendant, if the offence was (allegedly) committed when he was under 18. Fair enough.

... don't think that is an issue - when the trial starts the press can report that the trial has started. Before then what does it matter?

I'd still like to see the date and venue and the facts of the charge be reportable at any time. Otherwise, if a trial is being delayed by some bureaucratic ineptitude, which happens even in democracies, the press can't do its job of keeping the public informed (that the accused is suffering unfair delays).

I've just realised that all the uneasiness I feel about this resolution is based on what might happen if it were applied in nations that don't accept the NS UN definition of "fair trial". But such nations aren't in the NS UN, anyway. I'd still rather not give them the ammunition ... "See, even the UN accepts that the press sometimes has to be restrained, so I'm perfectly justified in shooting the lot of you because you didn't put capitals on My Name the way the law says you have to" ... but worrying about what the neighbours might think isn't a good basis for lawmaking; so, OK.

Howabout "The press may not report anything other than official announcements in relation to the trial" - something like that? So the press are not permitted to publish stories for no reason, but if there is an announcement by the court (or the CPS or the judicial system or whatever - but it has to be from the body that will either preside over the trial or have some official standing in the trial - not the lawyers or the like) then the press can publish it.

Would that work?

Could you replace "official" with "procedural"? "Official" is just too broad -- the "official" reason for a delay may not be the real reason. I want it to be acceptable for, say, The Times to report, "The trial of X on charges of Y has been postponed to Jan 30, 2006. This is the 15th time the trial has been delayed, each time, officially, on the basis of the need for further documentation. The trial was to have been held the week before the recent election. It was then delayed until the week after the Royal wedding. It was further delayed when the PM went into labour. Subsequent delays included the anniversary of the day the fox-hunting season used to open ..."

My biggest problem with this proposal is not allowing publications of opinions. I don't mind being unable to publish things deemed inadmissable, but opinions are not something that should be regulated. If someone is unable to understand the difference between opinion and fact, should they be deciding a person's fate?

People are only human. If you were to sit on a jury, and for the 12 months before the trial you saw nothing but "HE IS GUILTY! HE IS GUILTY!!" on every news station and every newspaper and heard it on every radio station, can you deny it would affect your opinion before the trial?

Further more - in the twelve months before the trial starts the judge will not have the power to deem stuff as admissible or not, so all the evidence, however legally questionable it is, would be all over the newspapers. So when the judge comes to deem the twenty seven page document inadmissable, everyone will have read it anyway, thus screwing up the trial.

I know; I meant that the UK press seems to be able to work within the laws without any feeling of restriction. In Australia (and in UK?), media organisations have been fined massively for such things as reporting the name of an over-18 defendant, if the offence was (allegedly) committed when he was under 18. Fair enough.


I think the UK press is entirely evil, but in relation to the way they handle trials they are models of virtue. If only because of the fact it is a pretty well enforced law.


I'd still like to see the date and venue and the facts of the charge be reportable at any time. Otherwise, if a trial is being delayed by some bureaucratic ineptitude, which happens even in democracies, the press can't do its job of keeping the public informed (that the accused is suffering unfair delays).


See later :}


I've just realised that all the uneasiness I feel about this resolution is based on what might happen if it were applied in nations that don't accept the NS UN definition of "fair trial". But such nations aren't in the NS UN, anyway. I'd still rather not give them the ammunition ... "See, even the UN accepts that the press sometimes has to be restrained, so I'm perfectly justified in shooting the lot of you because you didn't put capitals on My Name the way the law says you have to" ... but worrying about what the neighbours might think isn't a good basis for lawmaking; so, OK.


I can't begin to worry what effects a resolution will have on people not in the UN, because that way lies madness and crazy folk :}


Could you replace "official" with "procedural"? "Official" is just too broad -- the "official" reason for a delay may not be the real reason. I want it to be acceptable for, say, The Times to report, "The trial of X on charges of Y has been postponed to Jan 30, 2006. This is the 15th time the trial has been delayed, each time, officially, on the basis of the need for further documentation. The trial was to have been held the week before the recent election. It was then delayed until the week after the Royal wedding. It was further delayed when the PM went into labour. Subsequent delays included the anniversary of the day the fox-hunting season used to open ..."
[/QUOTE]

Ah - but then you potentially get in to supposition. In your example - would you be able to prove it wasn't for documentation? Because if a biased newspaper wanted to hint that the trial was starting off in a bad way, or that the judge was corrupt, they could report that the trial was delayed until a more suitable judge could be found, when the official announcement was "There are delays because of court procedure" which might just mean the justice departments computers crashed the night before.

If it only reports the official announcements from the body of the court (for want of a better phrase) then there can be no hint of trying to cast aspersions about the trial, or trying to influence the jury in anyway.

Well - despite my best attempts I don't appear to be able to convince people that this is a good thing. If the idea that you can have a free trial without media interference appears to be so unbelievable to the few people who post here, I hate to think what the rest of the UN will say.

So this proposal dies here. Thank you all for your comments.

BTW, for those of us who think that the NSUN should justify its actions based on its presumed authority to regulate international affairs, I'd suggest adding a statement about how news travels over international boundaries, and this the right to trial free of media commentary needs to be established at the international level.

Re: the US/UK thing, I think Americans are more cynical about government power; they ask "Is there a way to abuse this law?" before any other question. OTOH, I suspect that Britons see issues like this in terms of whether there's something government can do to make people's lives better. Since a lot of Americans are out there and you'll need many to support this resolution for it to pass, consider looking at what we Americans term "checks and balances".

Another point to consider: in the Clinton/Lewinski matter, Congress had a right to debate Mr. Clinton's actions even though the Jones trial was still in progress. As in the UK, impeachment is not a judicial matter: it can be thought of as a form of internal disciplinary hearing. Make sure that the "sub judicial" rules do not prevent political bodies akin to our Congress from debating matters like the removal of an officeholder or the conduct of other legitimate business of state. A trial can drag on and on, because truth in such matters is more important than time, and so if an officeholder thinks that delaying resolution of a pending legal matter can insulate him from being removed from office, he'll likely do exactly that.

Good luck. As I said, I'm still on the fence on this.

Well - despite my best attempts I don't appear to be able to convince people that this is a good thing. If the idea that you can have a free trial without media interference appears to be so unbelievable to the few people who post here, I hate to think what the rest of the UN will say.

So this proposal dies here. Thank you all for your comments.

If you want to give up, that's your prerogative. I think, though, that care for protection against state abuse by highly partisan governments - which seems to be the biggest concern - could turn the tide.

My plate is pretty full, but I'm going to save the draft and this thread, and look it over. If you do elect to give up, I'll see if it can be modified to preserve the intent and yet meet American sensibilities; then I'll TG it to you and maybe we can resurrect this. Even though I'm ambivalent about it, the idea is good and it would be a shame if this didn't come before the entire NSUN membership in a vote.

So now not content with having the press talking about whether someone is innocent or guilty and conducting a witch-hunt in the press, you are going to involve the judge in the witch-hunt as well? I mean why bother having a judiciary when everything is being conducted in the press? Why not just have opinion polls and execute people based on those? It would save a lot of money and then you wouldn't have to worry about corrupt judges.I already said it twice, but you can't get it. there is laws against libelling, and laws against blasphemy. if the press made something against those laws, you can deal them with hugh damages payments, or even closing of the newspaper or fired the problematic news person.
however, in your proposal in the current wording, you can't do anything against the judge. this is dangerous situation, and you should deal with it in your proposal, to prevent abusing of the judice system.
clear enough?

Oh for the love of the Lords. The evidence would not be taken to the judge, it would be taken to the Crown Prosecution Service (in the UK) or the police. The police could then investigate it without having to bring the judge in to it. The judge would clearly not be permitted to say "you can't investigate me for fraud" or the like, because that would be - no offecne - stupid beyond belief.
the problem is that this idea isn't including in the proposal. by the current wording, the press can't say anything about the judge decision neither in the newspapers, nor to the Crown Prosecution Service.
changing the wording, would be enough for me to know that this proposal isn't abused in the dictatorships, and if you can't solve the proposal abusing, I can't see the need of it.

Yeah - but the judge is not the only person who will know about this evidence. The prosecution and defence will know about it as well, as will the clerk of the court and the person taking the transcript. So if it turns out the judge has deemed it as inadmissble when it should have been admitted, then they can lodge an appeal. Further more once the trial is over - and the verdict has been given - the media are free to publish what they like because it can not possibly interfere with the outcome of the trial. So if they want to publish all the documents that the judge deemed inadmissble, they can.first, it will effect the outcome of the trial, if they get second trial.
second, they maybe know about the evidences, but if they can't publish them, this is useless.


Well DUH!!! That's the whole point of this proposal - to keep justice in the hands of an unbiased, independent system. Not to let every tom, dick and tori have their say when they might not know anything about the case.and as I said, you search the problems in the wrong place. I already said and I will said again that the problem is in the jury system, and not in the press. if you want I can argue with you about this part, but that is other issue.



FULL CENSORSHIP? Have you actually been reading this proposal? Or are you just making things up for the fun of it now? NO WHERE does it say that nothing about the trial can be reported once the trial starts.

Seriously - full censorship?yes, I think I will stay with that argument.
if the judge can decide about any little fact about the trial, it is just like he censore all the information about the trial. in some meanings, it even worse since the information he could give them could be lies.


What if they do? That is hardly the fault of this proposal. This just limits what can be printed about a single trial, and gives the power of limitation to the judge involved in that trial. And if you say slippery slope to me I am going to laugh in your face because that is the arguement of someone who has nothing decent to say.I already explain why this could be slippery slope. ignorance can't acheive anything.
in addition, my example of the goverment was quite simple. the power that you gave to the judges in your proposal, is exactly the power that I gave to the goverments in my example. can't you see the problem in that power?


Yeah - I have no idea what you mean with this. Sorry.
one sentence: I think the jury system is bad.

may that was clear enough, or you still can't see what my problem is?

Well - despite my best attempts I don't appear to be able to convince people that this is a good thing. If the idea that you can have a free trial without media interference appears to be so unbelievable to the few people who post here, I hate to think what the rest of the UN will say.

So this proposal dies here. Thank you all for your comments.
I don't think the proposal is bad. I just think it attack the wrong direction.

Don't give up. You did say you were looking for suggestions, and you got some. I think Green Israel's difficulty is with the idea of trial by jury, which really isn't within the compass of your resolution, given that the UN's already ruled on it. And the business with impeaching Presidents is extraneous, too. So, on the whole, you've just got a couple of people feeling uneasy because we've seen what over-enthusiastic governments can do with even the mildest of guidelines. That's not the same as saying you, or your resolution, are restricting Freedom of the Press. Throw a sop or two, tweak it here and there, and you've got it. Allemande seems to be about the same stage I'm at: almost there.

Don't give up. You did say you were looking for suggestions, and you got some. I think Green Israel's difficulty is with the idea of trial by jury, which really isn't within the compass of your resolution, given that the UN's already ruled on it. And the business with impeaching Presidents is extraneous, too. So, on the whole, you've just got a couple of people feeling uneasy because we've seen what over-enthusiastic governments can do with even the mildest of guidelines. That's not the same as saying you, or your resolution, are restricting Freedom of the Press. Throw a sop or two, tweak it here and there, and you've got it. Allemande seems to be about the same stage I'm at: almost there.
first, I gave options to change the wording, even if there is jury.
second, I didn't see where you get the idea that the jury is enforced. I think that: 6. Entitles a defendant to a jury of his or her peers. only give the accused the option to get jury members from his age.
still, it is meaningless on trials without jury, and it isn't require you will have jury.

Green Israel: This proposal was intended to focus on the role of the media in a trial, nothing else. What you are suggesting could well work in a different proposal.

But in any case,

TilEnca has chosen to withdraw from NS for the time being, so any points made now are of no use, unless someone else decides to pick up on the idea. I may have a go, others could as well.

Green Israel: This proposal was intended to focus on the role of the media in a trial, nothing else. What you are suggesting could well work in a different proposal.
there was some things he suggest as "the Crown Prosecution Service" and explaining for some parts, that seen good to me, if they were part of the proposal.
however, my suggestion to deal with the jury, despite with the media maybe aren't connected to the current idea, but they gave different world view and options to deal with the problem. for me, it just like the past suggestion to regulate prostitution despite ban it, to deal with the prostitution related problems.

TilEnca has chosen to withdraw from NS for the time being, so any points made now are of no use, unless someone else decides to pick up on the idea. I may have a go, others could as well.I think the proposal has good potential, and the problem it deal with is important (although I am against the way).

btw, TilEnca didnt withdraw because this thread, right? anyway, I sorry to know this news.