Friday, February 10, 2012

postheadericon Contempt laws are still valid in the internet age | Dominic Grieve

10:53 PM | Posted by ProJ | | Edit Post

media certainly present a challenge to the execution, but the contempt of Court Act is a sound piece of legislation

not always easy to reconcile freedom of expression with the needs of the justice system. As Attorney General, I see my role as an advocate for both freedom of the press and the administration of justice. And what is the guardian of public interest, not a government minister, to act in cases of contempt:. Protect the right of an accused to a fair trial is clear and compelling public interest

In the British system, the contempt of Court Act is part of the apparatus that protects that right, limiting what can be published on a case, while it is in direct so that the claims are not relevant or untested in the courts are not part of the consideration of a jury. Other jurisdictions have different ways of trying to protect this right (for example, some - including many in the U.S. - the practice of jury selection).

This past weekend, the question of how the laws of contempt in the information age has been raised again. It is contempt of 1981 apply, or even relevant in the context of communication worldwide rapid facilitated by the Internet?

There is no doubt that the characteristics of the Internet and social media in particular pose challenges for the application. Comments and information - or information - Posted outside the jurisdiction of the United Kingdom can not be treated with great effort and international cooperation. In the democracy of the Internet, which is published by one person can "go viral" within hours, with obvious implications. Comments about this site can be published shortly beyond its original audience limited. And I use the word deliberately published, the publication is, of course, the term used in contempt of Court Act -. An online article that violations of the strict liability rule is in danger of being outlawed contempt

Unlike mainstream news media, which all act in a responsible and measured, the inhabitants of the Internet often feel constrained by the laws of the country. It is believed that whenever something is posted in cyberspace there is no need to respect the laws of contempt or defamation. There must be a mistake. And it does not follow that because the law can not be perfect, uniform and universal, that there is no reason to do anything. I must consider each case on its merits. The fact that in a case that could be considered as a tweet, but insufficient, it is unlikely to cause serious harm or impede the course of justice, it would be wrong to assume that one tweet another case n ' was unable to attend the contempt, and require action on my part.
To be clear, the contempt of the 1981 Act was not intended to prohibit or restrict freedom of expression - far from it. The event was presented as a measure of liberalization in the wake of a decision, in 1979, the European Court of Human Rights.

It sets limits on when publishers are in danger of contempt, which protects a journalist's source disclosure, protecting secret conversations in the jury retired to his room, and offers a defense against the discussion of public affairs. It also provides for strict liability contempt, so called because reporters or editors may commit contempt without any intention of harming the legal proceedings


Find best price for : --Contempt--

0 comments:

Post a Comment

Subscribe to: Post Comments (Atom)