Freedom of the Press

[Snide]

Eagan (MN) Blogger Fans Canadian Scandal

I've learned something today about the (lack of) freedom of the press in Canada.

From the Star Tribune article:

Edward Morrissey, 42, began posting allegations of corruption in the Canadian Liberal Party late Saturday on his Captain's Quarters blog, a web log, which he runs as a hobby. It defies a ban, instituted by a federal judge, Justice John Gomery, that severely limits what Canadians can publish about the investigation into allegations of money laundering and kickbacks in a government program from the 1990s. The scandal dominated national politics for a year and led to the Liberals losing their majority in the House of Commons in June. The government program aimed to undermine Quebec separatists and involved payments of $85 million to some Montreal advertising firms for little or no work.

edited to add this quote:

"As a Canadian journalist, I can tell you it's frustrating," Cox said. "Every Canadian with a computer can sit down and read it, but we can't publish it. We're kind of envious that he [Morrissey] can do this."

 

[The idea]

I've learned something today about the (lack of) freedom of the press in Canada.

I just followed the link in the article and saw this:

Justice John Gomery has lifted the publication ban on Jean Brault's testimony, allowing the Canadian media to finally report the testimony to the Canadian public.

[...]
Justice Gomery only partially lifted the ban, leaving some question whether the ban would continue for Chuck Guité and Paul Coffin.

Now it doesn't look quite as draconian.

 

[geni]

many many courtries allow courts to issue reporting restiction s where they think it migh effect the trial

 

[The idea]

From the Star Tribune article:
The scandal [...] led to the Liberals losing their majority in the House of Commons in June.

This statement is an opinion, not a verifiable fact, but it insinuates that the publication ban was politically motivated.

 

[Mycroft]

many many courtries allow courts to issue reporting restiction s where they think it migh effect the trial

Isn't the trial over?

 

[geni]

Isn't the trial over?

The ban has nothing to do with this trial. The witnesses will shorty be on trial as well.

 

[Ziggurat]

many many courtries allow courts to issue reporting restiction s where they think it migh effect the trial

Sure, and many many countries have restrictions on free speech.

In the US, this is generally handled quite differently. Testimony that should not be made public is held under closed circumstances, where only a few parties directly involved have access to that testimony, which is NOT the case for the Canadian case (many journalists and politicians do have access to the testimony, but just can't discuss it). So in the US, injunctions are placed only on those parties involved to refrain from divulging details about that testimony to anyone, but the wider public and press is free to publish without restriction. Both approaches have the same goal, but the US approach does a much better job at protecting the concept of free speech.

 

[crimresearch]

So, does this differ significantly from the Jay Leno MJ gag order situation, or not?

 

[Art Vandelay]

Testimony that should not be made public is held under closed circumstances, where only a few parties directly involved have access to that testimony,

So can gag orders only be issued with regard to information that the party would not have had were in not for the trial?

So in the US, injunctions are placed only on those parties involved to refrain from divulging details about that testimony to anyone, but the wider public and press is free to publish without restriction.

Is that true? Can't someone who publishes something under a gag order be ordered to say where they got it, and possibly be investigated for inducing the breach?

 

[Ziggurat]

So can gag orders only be issued with regard to information that the party would not have had were in not for the trial?

IANAL, but I think the gag orders can probably apply to anything relating to the trial.

Is that true? Can't someone who publishes something under a gag order be ordered to say where they got it, and possibly be investigated for inducing the breach?

Not exactly. You can be forced to testify where you got your information in some circumstances (but even that's fairly narrow and uncommon), but only the person violating the order is actually liable. You can't "induce" a breach in any legally meaningful way - unless you commited theft or somesuch (in which case that's what you get charged with), it's always going to be the person who told you that's on the hook. And once any information leaks, republishing it again can't be stopped.