To be shocked that this could get published...

[WhatNoReally]

Daily Telegraph (yes, that says it all) story by Ian Maxwell about how his sister was screwed over by US justice. WTAF?! Do they not have an editor. See pic.

AIBU to think this should not have been published?

A couple of paragraphs from it...

"The 1980s hysteria about child sex abuse preceded the Child Protection and Obscenity Enforcement Act, which made sharing child sex abuse material over a computer illegal but also broadened the list of crimes for which the government could obtain wiretaps.

Today, the difficult problem of child sex abuse material on the Internet is being offered as a rationale for law enforcement to obtain backdoor access to encrypted communication or for Congress to obligate social media companies to surveil their users constantly, on posts and private messages. In other words, institutionalised state spying.

I feel great sympathy for any girls or women who have genuinely been abused but their abuse doesn’t give them the right automatically to be believed when they make unsubstantiated allegations, especially when those allegations are immensely well rewarded financially. That is what has happened to my sister"

While I’m certainly not defending Ghislaine Maxwell in the slightest, if a relative convicted of something and you felt it was unfair, wouldn’t you want the opportunity to speak up on their behalf in the press? Abhorrent as the whole situation may be, distasteful as you might find the article (and it’s pretty poor taste tbf), we do have free speech and a free press and if someone wants to write in defence of someone else that’s their right. When we start shutting down that right for others we also remove it for ourselves, and I wouldn’t want to be in that position. What if Nazanin Zaghari-Radcliffe’s family hadn’t been allowed to speak to the press on the grounds that she’d been found guilty by a court?

I'm not sure you compare the 'justice' afforded to Nazanin with that afforded to Ghislaine.

We have a free press (for now) why on earth shouldn't this be published?

As much as it’s a horrible article. We have a free press and free speech In this country. It can’t only be free speech on thing we agree with.

What are the BTL comments on that one?😲

His sister is a convicted criminal. There's got to be a line in terms of what newspapers give time to. Free speech isn't the only consideration.

Would it be OK if a relative of Wayne Couzens or Ian Huntley wrote about how their poor relative was being screwed by the UK justice system?

With a few exceptions the BTL comments are scathing.

Would it be OK if a relative of Wayne Couzens or Ian Huntley wrote about how their poor relative was being screwed by the UK justice system?

Yes, if someone wanted to print it. I doubt it would get a very good reception though. But they’d be entitled to their opinion as much as anyone else. You don’t think for everyone in prison there’s not plenty of friends and relatives out there thinking they’ve been badly treated, let down, mishandled? And the thing is some of those people are right. So we can’t just say, nobody can ever comment on a case where someone’s been convicted.

Telegraph doesn't have to publish ,though.
Free speech for Ian Maxwell to say his views but newspaper doesn't have to give him their platform. I wonder what Telegraph hopes to gain.

tbh, it's more a story of rich (white) people finding out that justice systems can be harsh & unfair. That custody sergeants aren't nice people, that being searched & accused sucks, that jails are inhuman places, that nobody cares what your reasons were. Who knew? Oh yeah, I remember, poor brown American people knew alright.

The lawyers I follow in Twitter who are very interested in criminal justice system reform -- just sigh at the sort of things Ian Maxwell wrote.

With a few exceptions the BTL comments are scathing

And there you go. That’s free speech. He can say it, and other people can object. Seems like that’s the system working just fine.

Can Juries can be influenced by the media and does anyone know studies that backup the assertion

Well he is allowed his opinion , and so are we. Interesting to read how governments could potentially abuse surveillance law to gain information for other purposes though.

You are allowed to read stuff and, you know, disagree with it.

Critical thinking and all that.

People will read it, some will agree, some will disagree, some will actively voice their opinions, some will not. And the world will turn.

The human race is going to exhaust itself at this rate.

Birmingham Six? Barry George? Sally Clark?
What would have happened to them and countless others if the the media wasn't able to discuss their cases?

She is his sister. We can hear the evidence against her and be repulsed and be glad they found her guilty. I expect his brain is screaming. If she is innocent ( jury didn't find her so ) then his sister is in a terrible situation. If she is guilty ,then his sister is a hideous, predatory paedophile . If that was your sibling you would be stuck in a terrible situation, just as her siblings are.

Exactly the same opinion here.

It's good press to allow free speech and another POV.

Allowing and printing doesn't automatically mean assume that they agree with that POV.

We need more non bias press and the option of public to be heard.

The public have clearly spoken on this judging by the comments.

YANBU to wonder why media baron Robert Maxwell’s children seem to find it easier than most to find a sympathetic press when convicted of trafficking.

Boris’s sister also wrote a supportive piece - forget whether it was in the Spectator or the Telegraph. These people are all mates, and look after their own.

150 different genders? What the fuck?