to think that if people are to be arrested for speech crimes, we should be told what they have said

[PatPig]

A man was murdered in broad daylight last week.

This was widely reported and televised, and the act and its media reporting has led to the commission of numerous crimes.

A number of people have been bundled out of their homes in the middle of the night for allegedly making offensive comments on Facebook and Twitter. www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/woolwich-attack-lincoln-man-benjamin-1909780

Quite what these comments are, is not being divulged, despite the fact that arresting people for speech crimes is not uncontroversial, unlike say arresting people for murder and theft, which in every nation on earth throughout history has been recognised as a serious crime.

AIBU we should be told what they said?

I take your point chaz.

It shouldn't be reported now but should be reported in court, but as the case proceeds, not at judgement. I guess that these cases might take just one day to conclude, so that might not be an issue.

I've been a court reporter. Sometimes magistrates and judges do take it upon themselves to determine the criteria for reporting, and it's the act of a responsible journalist to challenge that sometimes, because sometimes what a judge decides is not in the public interest.

I'd say that Mirror report is prejudicial, probably because whoever's written it doesn't understand their job, rather than that they're malicious. It's not a court reporter's job to take sides, whatever we might think of the person in the dock. No one's going to take the Mirror to court though.

mrstp I'd agree that the purpose of open justice is to keep everyone honest. That's on all sides.