Of course it doesn’t.
I realise that - see my previous post to AK84. I don’t want anyone getting the impression that our freedom of speech is so curtailed that we can’t express political opinions for fear of being found in contempt of court.
Yeah, just saw that. I really hope that none of the US posters have got that impression! :eek:
We’re too busy being shocked that you are all under constant video surveillance. 
Then why was the matter brought up at all? It’s not as if anyone here is privy to any relevant information that is not already public knowledge.
Presumably Quartz thinks some posters might be privy to such information. Also, it’s not a question of whether the information is public knowledge. It’s whether it’s known to the jury.
The warning given by one poster about doing this provides an interesting example of the chilling effect such anti-free speech actions have, even if people are overreacting.
Threads like this (and others appearing on the Dope highlighting speech/press restrictions in places like Germany, Italy and Australia), serve as eye-openers to Americans who may take their own freedoms for granted.
You have got to be shitting me. The issue here was and is contempt of court. ARe you telling me that Americans have the ability to disregard Court orders. Are court orders not orders, just suggestions in the US and A?:rolleyes:
What cases are these? I know about the phone hacking scandal, and I believe there’s some associated issues of bribery, but those are things that are already against the law, and anyway, I don’t really see the relevance to libel cases. What other situations has the press in the UK so fundamentally mishandled that this level of government oversight is necessary?
In the U.S., such orders, (known as gag orders), only apply to parties to the case. A judge has no ability to order bloggers, message-board posters, or any other third party to refrain from free speech.
I think you are spectacularly missing the point.
One issue here is people fearful of commenting on a court case whose parameters don’t even apply to them; the larger issues involve overreach of such sanctions and the enactment of “voluntary” government rules to control the press.
As to the earlier statement about how a requirement to “print truth” is not an abrogation of freedom of the press - I’m reminded of people who tell us that we shouldn’t be bothered by omnipresent video surveillance if we’re not doing anything wrong, or how having our communications monitored shouldn’t be objectionable if we’re not engaged in terrorism etc.
There are obviously consequences to unchecked behavior of this sort, even when innocent people are not being arrested and charged with something.
It’s important to remember that different cultures view civil liberties from different perspectives. Westerners (from outside the US) are generally horrified by the idea of making little kids recite a pledge of allegiance, for example (notwithstanding the fact that it isn’t constitutionally permissible to require kids to say it.)
I think what people are referring to about UK posters being careful what they say is the principle of sub judice.
So instead of restricting the internet access of a dozen people, the judge would rather restrict the speech of sixty million?
No, simple as that.
If it is something the judge is not allowed to order you to do? I’d rather hope so.
Or misinformation.
It’s not chilling, it’s just **Quartz **being Quartz, with his fondness for dramatic-sounding pronouncements. The reality is more benign and mundane. Britons can freely discuss current court cases. This is quite obviously true, since Britons, and the British press, do constantly discuss current court cases.
Most of the trouble a person can get into concerns revealing the identities of people the court has decreed should stay anonymous – these include minors, whether as witnesses or defendants, the alleged victims of sexual crimes and members of the security forces. Twitter and Facebook have made it increasingly difficult to keep those quiet if there are people motivated to out them. For example after a footballer was convicted of rape the identity of his victim was tweeted and retweeted by fans of his club. Irrc the originators of the tweets are being prosecuted.
The matter was brought up because…er, I’m not sure. You’d have to ask Quartz. Off the top of my head, I can’t see any reason why this thread will get any of us Brits thrown in jail.
All I was trying to do was make it clear that, while there are some unfortunate restrictions on freedom speech in this country, we’re not quite so far gone that we can’t even say that a law sucks dogs’ cocks in hell without worrying about being arrested.