Is the news being censored

[hrmg]

AIBU to ask if the news is being censored around a footballer that has recently been in custody?

Does anyone know why the news may be censored in this way?

Don't think we are allowed to discuss it on here.

There's a difference between censorship and being sub judice

It’s an active case. There are limits about what can be said.

Because he has been arrested, and no one will want to impact any future trial.

Are we allowed to discuss the censoring in general terms?

@Squidgames4U

Because he has been arrested, and no one will want to impact any future trial.

Ok this makes sense. Thank you

It was just because a day ago it was all over the news and then there hasn't been much else published for such a sensitive, emotive issue.

I wonder how / why the stories from a day ago we're able to be published then.

People can apply for injunctions to prevent publication of events relating to their personal lives, companies can do it too to prevent publication of stuff they want to keep secret. It costs a lot of money so only the really wealthy can do it.

Once someone has been charged with a crime any published comment risks compromising the trial and can get you (or Mumsnet) charged with contempt of court which is a very big deal. Wait until the trial is over and then you can say what you like (or say whatever you're thinking now to your mates down the pub).

It's not being censored, the case has been reported, a statement was released by the club- what more do you want to know. Speculation is never right.

News outlets (and the rest of us) are not allowed to publish anything that may mean a defendant does not get a fair trial.

Usually media will only make factual statements ("police have announced an XX year old woman is helping them with their enquiries").

There have been cases in the past where broadcasters "coincidentally" announced separate pieces of a story which enabled the public to put it all together, but this is unusual. (The case I'm thinking of involved a man I won't name here, but the BBC reported he'd been arrested over an unspecified allegation, whilst ITV reported an unspecified man had been arrested over a rape allegation.)

The stories were published before he was arrested. Now it's under the jurisdiction of the court and opinions published online could jeopardise the legal process.

When the stories were published yesterday there wasn’t an ongoing police investigation. Now someone has been arrested (and I believe charged) certain things can’t be published as they could influence the outcome of a future trial. Stories are still being published but the scope of them will be much narrower.

Discussions of any ongoing case can be problematic though as they can be seen as prejudicial to a fair trial - if there is a lot of public discussion it's harder for a Jury to decide any case on the evidence rather than what they have read/seen in the media - not all of which may be accurate or true.

@gogohm

It's not being censored, the case has been reported, a statement was released by the club- what more do you want to know. Speculation is never right.

I didn't know whether it was this, or more the injunction thing mentioned upthread.

I was interested in the censor aspect of it as with the internet as it is these days it must be extremely difficult to keep a lid on certain things so I wondered if that was being done here and if so how and why.

@DrHildegardeLanstrom

There's a difference between censorship and being sub judice

What is sun judice?

There's no injunction as far as I know. Most media outlets won't want to fall foul of the law and risk prejudicing a trial by publishing any details. For example, keeping the identity of the victim a secret (although it's clearly known). It's hardly censorship when media are just following the law, protecting the victim and attempting to ensure that the person charged has a fair trial (and therefore the best chance of being convicted)

I wonder if I should report my post as I didn't realise discussion of this nature was not allowed. I'm not sure how to report though?

Perhaps it’s because on the threads that are popping up on here the victim is being named. As it’s now a criminal investigation she should have anonymity.

It’s not censoring. Matters are now sub judice. Contempt of court carries significant penalties.

I hadn't come across that term before

The rule means that when a legal matter or controversy has come under the jurisdiction of a court (sub judice), nobody, including the press and other media should interfere by publication or public clamor with the court's proper handling o f the proceeding. The sub judice rule is a foreign legal concept.

What is sun judice?

www.pinsentmasons.com/out-law/guides/the-sub-judice-rule-and-contempt-of-court

I think this thread is fine and informative. Every time there's a high profile case there are threads which cross the line, so there are clearly a lot of posters who need to know this stuff.
This is what sub judice means OP. Slightly old fashioned term now, but it means "going to trial so be careful what you say because you're at risk of Contempt of Court"
en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sub_judice

@hrmg

I hadn't come across that term before

The rule means that when a legal matter or controversy has come under the jurisdiction of a court (sub judice), nobody, including the press and other media should interfere by publication or public clamor with the court's proper handling o f the proceeding. The sub judice rule is a foreign legal concept.

That definition appears to come from the Philippines Senate.

The sub judice rule is a foreign legal concept.

Er.... not in England and Wales it's not!

BTW it is pronounced "sub judisay"