Page 2 | Is the news being censored

hrmg · 2022-01-31T14:29:56+00:00

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?

Phrenologistsfinger · 31/01/2022 14:57

Sub judicie (‘under the courts’) rules means it is likely to be contempt of court to publish anything relating to a live legal case. It’s pretty standard!

Phrenologistsfinger · 31/01/2022 14:58

*judice

HopefulProcrastinator · 31/01/2022 14:58

To spin things around...can you imagine what the victim's/victim's family would have to go through if the accused of any crime was found 'not guilty' by virtue of the media in all it's forms giving even a slither of leverage for unfair trial.

It's absolutely right that the media don't publish/support speculative articles/content whilst an investigation is ongoing right up until either charges are dropped, or court is finished.

It's not about censorship in the sense that we don't have a right to know things, it's more about protection of the innocent (which could even be someone accused falsely for matters of all balance).

This is different to a direct request to the media from the police/CPS to ask if anyone who may have additional information to make themselves known to the investigators.

Georgeskitchen · 31/01/2022 14:58

@hrmg

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?

You haven't named anybody so can't get in trouble I don't think An announcement could be made that X has been charged with Y offence then nothing more reported until the trial

Xenia · 31/01/2022 15:06

Tommy Robinson breached this rule. It is quite an important rule but lots of ordindary people have no idea about it. I think schools should teach it given how may people post things on social media these days.,

VodselForDinner · 31/01/2022 15:09

A step-by-step guide you how these things can go:

Rumours start up online that Person X has committed a crime.
Person X is arrested
Idiots on social media continue to post photos/videos and rants saying Person X should be strung up by the neck.
Person X attends court where their lawyer argues that the case has attracted so much social media attention that there is no way that their client can have a fair trial.
Judge decides that case cannot be heard
The trial collapses
Person X is a free woman/man
The tests on social media do it all again a week later.

Wreath21 · 31/01/2022 15:11

There have been a lot of problems over the years with newspapers overstepping the mark and publishing information that could be seen as prejudicial to a fair trial. It's worth remembering that everyone, according to UK law, is innocent until proven guilty: everyone has a right to trial by jury and the reason newspapers should not publish stuff claiming that an accused/arrested/charged person committed the crime before any trial is taken place is that jurors may be more inclined to make up their minds before they have heard the evidence for the defence.

Original poster

hrmg · 31/01/2022 15:19

@Xenia

Tommy Robinson breached this rule. It is quite an important rule but lots of ordindary people have no idea about it. I think schools should teach it given how may people post things on social media these days.,

Good point about education.

Also if this happens time and time again on social media, I wonder if there is a responsibility on the SM owners to communicate rules related to this when controversy starts trending.

OP posts:

chesirecat99 · 31/01/2022 15:21

There are reporting restrictions on all criminal cases in the UK once they are active, eg someone has been arrested or charged, to prevent a jury being prejudiced by what they have read/heard in the media eg whether a person has previous convictions, things about their character or past behaviour. You are only allowed to report the most basic information - name, age, the charge etc. If you breach the restrictions, you can be charged with contempt of court.

justasking111 · 31/01/2022 15:26

Sometimes social media is ahead with the information police then act from that point on media must be very careful

RavenclawDiadem · 31/01/2022 15:34

It is sort of censorship, but not because things should be hidden.

Police will often ask for footage taken at the scene of a crime, audio, text messages, pictures, whatever to be deleted from social media or the internet after someone is arrested or charged.

That is because that when a case comes to court, those same pictures or dashcam footage might be used as evidence in court.

RedToothBrush · 31/01/2022 15:36

Reports in the press prior to a trial can lead to a situation where a conviction could be challenged on the grounds that it prejudiced the jury.

Therefore the press don't report active cases prior to a trial to ensure that justice is done properly.

Thats not censorship. Thats allowing the courts to service justice rather than trial by the media.

Newspapers will then report the details of the crime as laid out by the defence and the prosecution during the course of the trial.

It ensures fairness and that public understanding of the facts of the matter is ultimately correct in the long run. So things are reported - just not immediately.

AnakinthePadawhine · 31/01/2022 15:37

I appreciate what is being said on this thread, and this is very informative (thank you all), but what is the difference with Andrew's case?

Original poster

hrmg · 31/01/2022 15:41

@AnakinthePadawhine

I appreciate what is being said on this thread, and this is very informative (thank you all), but what is the difference with Andrew's case?

Good point didn't think of this and actually this is probably why I was a bit confused as I know that the media do sometimes to get carried away.

OP posts:

chesirecat99 · 31/01/2022 15:42

@AnakinthePadawhine

I appreciate what is being said on this thread, and this is very informative (thank you all), but what is the difference with Andrew's case?

It's a civil case, not a criminal case. It's in the US, not the UK. Reporting restrictions for UK criminal cases don't apply.

daimbarsatemydogsbone · 31/01/2022 15:44

@AnakinthePadawhine

I appreciate what is being said on this thread, and this is very informative (thank you all), but what is the difference with Andrew's case?

It's a civil case (so he hasn't been charged with a criminal offence) and it's being held in The USA where reporting rules are much less strict anyway.

chesirecat99 · 31/01/2022 15:44

That wasn't very clear. UK laws don't apply because it is a civil case in a different country.

Whatisthepointinthis · 31/01/2022 15:47

I know what you mean op.

I have no idea how they keep the discussions off social media as that is much harder to control.

Is this a fairly new concept (ie in the last few years)? It feels like in the past the press used to dredge up all sorts of information about the accused and nowadays there is a wall of silence. It can feel like things are being hushed up but I can understand the need to not prejudice a trial.

Is this because high profile cases have collapsed in the past for this reason?

Tomeeornottomee · 31/01/2022 15:52

Because it jeopardises the chance of a fair trial if there’s a trial by public opinion before hand.

daimbarsatemydogsbone · 31/01/2022 15:57

@Whatisthepointinthis

I know what you mean op.

I have no idea how they keep the discussions off social media as that is much harder to control.

Is this a fairly new concept (ie in the last few years)? It feels like in the past the press used to dredge up all sorts of information about the accused and nowadays there is a wall of silence. It can feel like things are being hushed up but I can understand the need to not prejudice a trial.

Is this because high profile cases have collapsed in the past for this reason?

It's a long standing principle but yes, high profile cases have collapsed - www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-13905765

It's interesting - the rise of social media, almost all of which are run by US corporations has raised some interesting questions about our laws. Most of the social media companies don't consider themselves bound by UK laws.
Facebook doesn't seem to care about the UK advertising standards authority for example and Martin Lewis had to engage in expensive legal action get them to stop publishing scam adverts using his face - he'd have had no such issue with a UK newspaper, or even Mumsnet.

skodadoda · 31/01/2022 16:14

@PurpleDaisies

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

This

2022sucksalready · 31/01/2022 16:19

If you are meaning the story I think, the bbc have just put up an update on the story. It includes this statement from the police….

The force added: "We remind people to avoid any commentary or sharing of images that could compromise the victim's right to lifelong anonymity, or risk prejudicing a live investigation with active proceedings."

whiteworldgettingwhiter · 31/01/2022 16:26

See www.lexico.com/definition/sub_judice

MayThePawsBeWithYou · 31/01/2022 16:40

Its still all over social media with pictures and recordings, why hasnt it been taken down.

CorrBlimeyGG · 31/01/2022 16:45

I'm not sure what has been censored. The story was everywhere yesterday (and still readily available). What more does anyone need to know at this point?