What has happened to the UK

[Mojo]

Observing the trial or not, he’s taking an action that harms someone else. This is a no-no in Libertarianism.

Under some sorts of libertarianism, it’s OK as long as teh gubmint doesn’t get involved, especially to try to prevent it.

 

[Mojo]

We have an inalienable right to publish and read prejudicial material if we are not interacting with the trial itself.

We have it period. If a reporter gets to attend a trial, and publishes anyway, that is their right. I'm fine with them not being allowed back, but they have a right to not be punished for it.

And screw the right to a fair trial?

 

[BobTheCoward]

And screw the right to a fair trial?

The government has to guarantee a fair trial. They have to guarantee both. It is a hard job. I have no interest in compromising to make it easier for them.

 

[Jack by the hedge]

The government has to guarantee a fair trial. They have to guarantee both. It is a hard job. I have no interest in compromising to make it easier for them.

Thus no matter what lengths someone goes to in order to wreck a fair trial, it's solely the government's job to prevent them and so it's not that person's responsibility if they succeed and the guilty go free.

I think on balance I like living in my world more than yours.

PS Important tip for governments: Whatever means you devise for preventing people wrecking trials must not impinge, even temporarily, on their inalienable right to do whatever the hell they please, because that has at least the same importance as giving people a fair trial. Carry on.

 

[Mojo]

The government has to guarantee a fair trial. They have to guarantee both. It is a hard job. I have no interest in compromising to make it easier for them.

You can’t guarantee both. There must inevitably be some sort of compromise. In the U.K it is done by carrying out trials openly and, until after the verdict, restricting what can be published. You might prefer to do it by carrying out trials in secret, but that’s not a good look for justice.

 

[BobTheCoward]

Thus no matter what lengths someone goes to in order to wreck a fair trial, it's solely the government's job to prevent them and so it's not that person's responsibility if they succeed and the guilty go free.

I think on balance I like living in my world more than yours.

I also prefer to live in your world.

 

[BobTheCoward]

You can’t guarantee both. There must inevitably be some sort of compromise. In the U.K it is done by carrying out trials openly and, until after the verdict, restricting what can be published. You might prefer to do it by carrying out trials in secret, but that’s not a good look for justice.

I'm skeptical to claims if they can or can't guarantee both. Regardless, human rights don't permit them to not try.

 

[catsmate]

It is stopping someone from speaking about something they are not a party to and merely made an observation in public. It is criminalising the most basic act of speech. It is no different than punishing people for saying, "the cat that walked by is orange."

Rubbish.

It is none of your business what my interest is.

 

[Dave Rogers]

We have an inalienable right to publish and read prejudicial material if we are not interacting with the trial itself.

I thought you said there were no such things as rights, just things that governments choose to describe as rights.

And, by the way, you're doing that thing again where you present opinions as facts. If you really were listening in high school, you would have known the difference. "I believe we have an inalienable right..." - statement of opinion. "We have an inalienable right..." - claim of fact. Not very difficult, is it?

Dave

 

[catsmate]

Those two things, the cat and the rape victim, are exactly the same. Neither needs a public interest for someone to speak those words.

No, they're not. At least not in the Real World, as opposed to Libertarian Fantasy Land.

 

[Dave Rogers]

I also prefer to live in your world.

And yet you choose not to.

Dave

 

[Worm]

I'm skeptical to claims if they can or can't guarantee both. Regardless, human rights don't permit them to not try.

They do try.

The first time he did it, he was warned that if he did it again he would face further charges.

He did it again.

ETA: that's probably not an accurate legal representation of the process, but it gives the general flow. (IANAL)

 

[BobTheCoward]

And yet you choose not to.

Dave

On important issues like this, I'm not going to let what I like influence it.

 

[BobTheCoward]

They do try.

The first time he did it, he was warned that if he did it again he would face further charges.

He did it again.

They did not try. Charging is by definition a failure to protect both rights without compromise. I already discussed a solution that would have protected the trial and would have left him standing out there streaming his garbage.

 

[Worm]

I'm actually not sure the tinted windows/tent option would have helped., He was making accusations about defendants, regardless of whether he could see them or not, that approach would also have restricted the rights of legitimate reporters to collect information to be reported later.

Compromise is necessary.

 

[BobTheCoward]

and would have restricted the rights of legitimate reporters to collect information to be reported later.

Compromise is necessary.

No, it wouldn't have.

 

[Worm]

No, it wouldn't have.

Disagree.

Move on.

 

[BobTheCoward]

I'm actually not sure the tinted windows/tent option would have helped., He was making accusations about defendants, regardless of whether he could see them or not, that approach would also have restricted the rights of legitimate reporters to collect information to be reported later.

Compromise is necessary.

Reporters don't have a right to collect information. They only have the right to not be stopped once they have it.

 

[Worm]

One way of assuring open, public trials is ensuring that reporters have access to report. In some cases they are asked to delay this reporting where it has the potential to prejudice the operation of the trial.

I see this as a fair compromise. You don't. C'est la vie.

 

[BobTheCoward]

One way of assuring open, public trials is ensuring that reporters have access to report. In some cases they are asked to delay this reporting where it has the potential to prejudice the operation of the trial.

I see this as a fair compromise. You don't. C'est la vie.

More than"don't." I see it as systematic human rights abuses. The gap between us is pretty wide.