Free Speech vs Due Process/Fair Trial

[Sava]

I've had enough with the Laci Petersen coverage, the Kobe Bryant rape talk, the Robert Blake case, OJ, the snipers, the list goes on...

My question is simple. Does excessive media coverage of legal proceedings affect the defendant's rights to a fair trial by an impartial jury? Should the media be allowed to cover impending or current legal proceedings to the extent it does now?

Discuss...


In my opinion, the media should be restricted in it's coverage of legal matters until they are concluded. Other than satisfying the curiousity of news junkies, there's no logical reason why these stories should be as public as they are. In fact, I believe that the excessive media attention only hurts the justice system, it's ability to provide defendants with their constitutional right to a fair trial by impartial jury, and it's damn annoying to see such coverage when there are more important and interesting things going on in the world.

IIRC, Britain's media has such restrictions on what they can report about pending legal matters. It seems to work for them. I'd appreciate comments from our UK posters on this topic, as well.

After such legal matters are concluded, the media can report what they would normally report. But I feel that a restriction in this regard is justified and would be a healthy practice for the US media.

[KrazyHorse]

What did Kobe allegedly do? I've seen his face in some stories concerning a trial recently, but don't know anything more than that...

[KrazyHorse]

Also, judges in Canada regularly put out gag orders on certain cases, usually ones involving celebrities or of such a gruesome nature that they have inspired curiousity on their own merits.

[SlowwHand]

Right. Cover wars to the point of being in the way, but not legal cases.
What makes you think that hurts the defense?
The press investigates also.
Maybe without the eyes of the press, prisoners would be roughed up.
As far as Britain, your point didn't help the departed Princess much.

[Sava]

Originally posted by KrazyHorse
What did Kobe allegedly do? I've seen his face in some stories concerning a trial recently, but don't know anything more than that...

the words, "sexual assault, rape, sexual misconduct" have been used. The media has been holding open discussions on whether or not "Kobe did it". But yet, nobody in the public has access to the facts, and cannot make an educated decision. People are jumping to conclusions, and with such national attention, any potential jury pools have become polluted.

Please don't discuss these matters... I don't want this turning into a gossip thread... stick to the topic please.

thanks

[Az]

That he has sexually assaulted a woman.

Personally, I think it's a bunch of ****.

[Az]

Sorry sava.

Anyway, I think that due trial is more important.

[Sava]

Originally posted by SlowwHand
Right. Cover wars to the point of being in the way, but not legal cases.

I didn't comment on that topic.

What makes you think that hurts the defense?

pollutes jury pools

The press investigates also.

The press doesn't work for the government. If they decide to investigate, they should report their findings to authorities

Maybe without the eyes of the press, prisoners would be roughed up.

I doubt this matter is relevant

As far as Britain, your point didn't help the departed Princess much.

That happened in France, numb nuts.

[Imran Siddiqui]

Free Speech should be protected as far as it does not slander or impair national security. Even with excessive media coverage, there can still be a fair trial on the merits. That is what voire dire is for.

[KrazyHorse]

Originally posted by Azazel
Sorry sava.

Anyway, I think that due trial is more important.

Bingo. The sharks can wait until a verdict's been delivered.

[Imran Siddiqui]

If they decide to investigate, they should report their findings to authorities

Why should the press give information that may be damaging to the prosecution TO the prosecution? If they report it, then perhaps the defendant can have a better chance.

[GePap]

I fully agree with Sava (hmm, first time): the rights of the defendent are paramount. At a minimum, the name fo the defendent should be kept secret once an indictment comes down. When the police are looking fo s ausspect, then the rpess has the right to say whom the cops are looking for, but once the trial begins, the press needs to respect the rights of the individual on trial, and not to taint the jurry pool.

[Sava]

Why should the press give information that may be damaging to the prosecution TO the prosecution? If they report it, then perhaps the defendant can have a better chance.

IIRC, if someone has information relevant to a criminal investigation, and they don't divulge it, isn't that Obstruction of Justice?

[GePap]

Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui

If they decide to investigate, they should report their findings to authorities

Why should the press give information that may be damaging to the prosecution TO the prosecution? If they report it, then perhaps the defendant can have a better chance.

Or a worse chance: no matter, the public can get to know what is going on in the trial: show up, most courts are open to the public.

[Az]

The goal of free speech in society is to fix wrongdoings, and to create the best way of action through public debate. And while I know that the "right" holds to all other uses of free speech, such as porn, I also know that the 'right' to a fair trial is important, and this case is the core of this "right".