Since I was talking about “other jurisdictions”, I thought it was pretty clear that I might actually be talking about law outside Florida, and even outside the US. I’m not an expert on US law, but I do know that the First Amendment affects a whole bunch of things, including contempt of court.
My point was in response to Garfield226’s question, “Why should a newspaper be concerned with the state’s ability to produce an ‘unbiased jury’?” I guess that can be interpreted as a question about qhat the law is, or as a question about what the law should be. I took it the second way, and pointed out that in England, Scotland, and in some other countries that have drawn on UK law, the line between the rights of newspapers/journalists to report the news and the rights of accused criminals to a fair trial has been drawn in a very different position. And, as an Australian coming from a legal system similar to the English one in this regard, I fid it hard to see how you can have an unprejudiced jury in a really high profile case (e.g., O.J. Simpson or Timothy McVeigh), because of how the media are allowed to publish prejudicial information before a jury trial.
That’s all: I wasn’t claiming that (without very strong links to a case in a court in the UK) a Florida journalist would be subject to that law of contempt of court.
Nevertheless there is a difference between what a journalist can do legally/constitutionally and what most journalists feel they can do within the constraints of the ethics and professional standards of their profession/employer.
Most media outlets have as policy the non-publishing of the names of rape victims. Most media outlets also generally cooperate with law enforcement within reason. And if there’s a detail of a case that a journalist might no, but withholding it furthers an ongoing criminal investigation, and if the information isn’t essentially to getting the news out, most media outlets will also withhold said information.
Prior restraint is also not outright “banned” by any means. Case law is fragmented on the matter, off the top of my head I cannot think of any prior restraint cases in which the government has won before the SCOTUS. I know that in the Pentagon Papers case the government lost, and was not permitted to maintain an injunction on publication of the classified documents. However, in that particular decision a majority of the justices did concur that in some cases prior restraint could be justified (just not in that particular case.)
As with other things, the meaning of the word “Yanks” changes when you leave the United States. In other English-speaking countries, it’s not limited to people coming from states north of the Mason-Dixon Line, or even states East of the Hudson River.