Ghislaine Maxwell

[Planigale]

Any US law purporting to enact a broad muzzling of the press in court cases would almost certainly be ruled to violate the First Amendment. The only such laws that have been found to pass Constitutional muster (to use a slightly worn cliché) are those that are narrowly tailored to compelling state interests, such as protecting the identities of rape victims and jurors.

In UK the court proceedings are open. But what is subject to legal action is publishing articles that might cause the jury to consider facts not presented in court. So in the UK only the court proceedings can be published*. An interview with a 'victim' alleging abuse extra-judicially would be banned. Most UK residents although desiring salacious gossip about legal proceedings accept that limiting press comment to the legal process is just. A balance between open justice and fair justice.

*During the judicial proceedings.

 

[theprestige]

In UK the court proceedings are open. But what is subject to legal action is publishing articles that might cause the jury to consider facts not presented in court. So in the UK only the court proceedings can be published*. An interview with a 'victim' alleging abuse extra-judicially would be banned. Most UK residents although desiring salacious gossip about legal proceedings accept that limiting press comment to the legal process is just. A balance between open justice and fair justice.

*During the judicial proceedings.

In the US this is addressed first by calling on the jurors to not let themselves be unduly influenced by information they might encounter outside the courtroom, and second by sequestering the jury. In some cases, moving the trial to another venue is also done, but these days media has a global reach so finding an untouched jury is much more difficult.

I think both approaches have trade-offs, and other than national-chauvinistic titillation there's no real benefit to proclaiming one superior to the other.

Would the UK prosecute the author of a book that detailed her experiences with the accused in a trial? Would they prosecute the publisher who published the book while the trial was ongoing?

 

[smartcooky]

In UK the court proceedings are open. But what is subject to legal action is publishing articles that might cause the jury to consider facts not presented in court. So in the UK only the court proceedings can be published*. An interview with a 'victim' alleging abuse extra-judicially would be banned. Most UK residents although desiring salacious gossip about legal proceedings accept that limiting press comment to the legal process is just. A balance between open justice and fair justice.

*During the judicial proceedings.

In the US, such a restriction would be a 1A violation, something that perhaps does not apply apply in the UK. However, I thought that even in UK, juries are instructed by the magistrate not to talk about, or read, watch or listen to news about the case.

 

[TurkeysGhost]

In UK the court proceedings are open. But what is subject to legal action is publishing articles that might cause the jury to consider facts not presented in court. So in the UK only the court proceedings can be published*. An interview with a 'victim' alleging abuse extra-judicially would be banned. Most UK residents although desiring salacious gossip about legal proceedings accept that limiting press comment to the legal process is just. A balance between open justice and fair justice.

*During the judicial proceedings.

Seems like an awfully heavy handed approach to silence the entire general public. If it's so vital to keep the jury untainted, just sequester them.

Having trials occurring with a media blackout strikes me as extremely sketchy if you believe in any notion of liberal-democratic society.

 

[theprestige]

Seems like an awfully heavy handed approach to silence the entire general public. If it's so vital to keep the jury untainted, just sequester them.

Having trials occurring with a media blackout strikes me as extremely sketchy if you believe in any notion of liberal-democratic society.

It's easy and tempting to point and laugh, but honestly I think this is just a case of each society weighing the priorities a little differently and coming up with solutions that work fine for their society but seem strange to others.

 

[Ian Osborne]

Having trials occurring with a media blackout strikes me as extremely sketchy if you believe in any notion of liberal-democratic society.

It's not a 'media blackout', it's a limit on what the media can say *during* the trial. The court proceedings can still be reported on, but not commented on. An interview with someone who claims to be a victim of the accused would certainly be ruled in contempt of court, though that interview could still take place after the verdict.

 

[Bob001]

It's not a 'media blackout', it's a limit on what the media can say *during* the trial. The court proceedings can still be reported on, but not commented on. An interview with someone who claims to be a victim of the accused would certainly be ruled in contempt of court, though that interview could still take place after the verdict.

Why? She's not just a victim, she's the author of a book about her experiences. That's why she was interviewed. She is not a witness and has no connection to the trial. Are you claiming that she couldn't write a book about her life, or that her publisher couldn't print or distribute it? Suppose she wrote the book before the trial? Is it supposed to come off the shelves if the subject is arrested? Suppose a public official was charged with corruption? Nobody in the country can talk about it? It's hard to believe that the law in the UK, with its history of wild tabloids and vigorous, often personal debate in Parliament, is really as restrictive as you say.

 

[Ian Osborne]

Why? She's not just a victim, she's the author of a book about her experiences. That's why she was interviewed. She is not a witness and has no connection to the trial.

Her experiences would be relevant to the trial. She's claiming to have been abused by someone who's on trial for very similar abuse. Even if she's not directly connected to the trial, she's in a position to influence it, so the interview would be contempt of court.

Are you claiming that she couldn't write a book about her life, or that her publisher couldn't print or distribute it? Suppose she wrote the book before the trial? Is it supposed to come off the shelves if the subject is arrested?

Of course she could, but the book couldn't be released during the trial. If it was already on the shelves by then, it probably wouldn't be withdrawn, but promoting it in the media would be dodgy.

Suppose a public official was charged with corruption? Nobody in the country can talk about it?

Sure, we can all talk about it. The limitations are on the media, not individuals.

It's hard to believe that the law in the UK, with its history of wild tabloids and vigorous, often personal debate in Parliament, is really as restrictive as you say.

The terrible state of our press is an excellent argument for our sub judice rules.

 

[Bob001]

.....
Sure, we can all talk about it. The limitations are on the media, not individuals.
.....

What's "the media?" Seriously. Would there be restrictions on daily newspapers and broadcast TV that wouldn't apply to Facebook and Twitter? Would somebody be prohibited from holding a public rally to raise money for a defendant's legal fund? Once you start restricting speech, you go down a deep rabbit hole.

 

[Darat]

Why? She's not just a victim, she's the author of a book about her experiences. That's why she was interviewed. She is not a witness and has no connection to the trial. Are you claiming that she couldn't write a book about her life, or that her publisher couldn't print or distribute it? Suppose she wrote the book before the trial? Is it supposed to come off the shelves if the subject is arrested? Suppose a public official was charged with corruption? Nobody in the country can talk about it? It's hard to believe that the law in the UK, with its history of wild tabloids and vigorous, often personal debate in Parliament, is really as restrictive as you say.

See: https://www.judiciary.uk/wp-content/uploads/2015/07/reporting-restrictions-guide-may-2016-2.pdf

That covers the situation in detail.

 

[Vixen]

If the waiters are underage and the customers bang them, then they may not be technically pedophiles but they are criminals. Eve if you find some weirdo bar somewhere where the waiters dress in diapers, sex with persons under the age of consent is still criminal. It shouldn't be that hard to understand.

Ah, but you can't stop people from role-playing.

 

[Vixen]

Interesting ruling by the judge; he ruled that having sex with 'Jane' aged seventeen was not criminal as it was above the age of consent in the UK.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-59557022
Although none of what 'Jane' testified to amounts to a crime it clearly sets up Maxwell as knowing about Epstein's interest in sex with teen age girls, and Maxwell being complicit in the behaviour. I think that this is certainly helpful in terms of proving conspiracy.

Clearly Epstein fits into the pattern of manipulative and abusive older powerful men who take advantage of young women, whether aspiring tennis players, models, actresses etc.

Wait! Wasn't this woman introduced to Epstein by her own sleazy boyfriend aged 38 (when she was a teenager)? So she returned to Epstein a hundred times over the next few years. She was a drug addict and alcoholic. Her mother was alcoholic and her grandfather sexually abused her. She is on medication for drug addiction and schizophrenia. Every sympathy, and all that, but there needs to be a better level of proof that Maxwell was to blame apart from being nice to her and supposedly introducing her to Epstein and standing at the door whilst Epstein disrobed.

 

[Vixen]

Another account from a woman who is not part of the trial.

https://www.yahoo.com/lifestyle/jef...once-youre-in-you-cant-get-out-170021449.html

Sarah Ransome of course was in the Netflix film, received a pay out from the Epstein fund and is now promoting a book. Good on her!

However, she is not part of the trial. Of course the trial is a good place to promote her book but I can't see it is ethical until Maxwell has been convicted.

 

[smartcooky]

It's not a 'media blackout', it's a limit on what the media can say *during* the trial.

In the US, that would be a violation of the First Amendment....

"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances."​

It would be illegal for the US Government to disallow the press from commenting on an ongoing court case. While many media outlets do voluntarily limit what they say "sub-judice", the government is =not [permitted to muzzle them.

 

[Ian Osborne]

What's "the media?" Seriously. Would there be restrictions on daily newspapers and broadcast TV that wouldn't apply to Facebook and Twitter?

The law’s catching up on that one, but I suspect a popular blogger’s FB or Twitter feed might be prosecuted for commenting on a current trial, but I’m not aware of an individual getting busted for a similar post. Technically, I suppose they could be.

Tommy Robinson was jailed for contempt for live reporting on the trial of paedophiles, on Facebook, IIRC. There’s a good article about it here.

Would somebody be prohibited from holding a public rally to raise money for a defendant's legal fund?

There would be limitations on what was legal during the trial.

Once you start restricting speech, you go down a deep rabbit hole.

There are conflicting interests here between the right to free speech and the right to a fair trial. To take the line in the other direction, would you allow the media to name rape and blackmail victims? To print lies about individuals for ulterior motives, with the impugned having no comeback?

 

[Darat]

See: https://www.judiciary.uk/wp-content/uploads/2015/07/reporting-restrictions-guide-may-2016-2.pdf

That covers the situation in detail.

….. In recognition of the open justice principle, the general rule is that justice should be administered in public. To this end:
• Proceedings must be held in public.
• Evidence must be communicated publicly.
• Fair, accurate and contemporaneous media reporting of proceedings should not be prevented by any action

​

​

of the court unless strictly necessary.
Therefore, unless there are exceptional circumstances laid down by statute law and/or common law the court must not:
• Order or allow the exclusion of the press or public from court for any part of the proceedings.
• Permit the withholding of information from the open court proceedings.
• Impose permanent or temporary bans on reporting of the proceedings or any part of them including anything that prevents the proper identification, by name and address​

…

….The courts and Parliament have given particular rights to the press to give effect to the open justice principle, so that they can report court proceedings to the wider public, even if the public is excluded.…​

…. Throughout this document reference is made to “the media”.This includes the press, radio, television, press agencies and online media. In general terms, the automatic and discretionary reporting restrictions described in this guidance apply both to traditional media such as newspapers and broadcasters and to online media and individual users of social media websites such as Twitter and Facebook…..
​

 

[Bob001]

.....
There are conflicting interests here between the right to free speech and the right to a fair trial. To take the line in the other direction, would you allow the media to name rape and blackmail victims? To print lies about individuals for ulterior motives, with the impugned having no comeback?

Responsible media outlets in the U.S. generally don't publish the names of rape victims and children, but it is not a legal mandate. If someone is the subject of lies, he can sue for libel, slander and defamation. And even in the example you cite, it seems to be established that the media can publish reports of actual trial testimony; if somebody lies about someone else in court, that is still fit for publication. What seems to be restricted is comment about the trial or the defendant. I'm not sure what that accomplishes.

In the U.S., commentary by lawyers and analysts helped the pubic understand the issues in the Chauvin, Rittenhouse, McMichael and other notorious cases. It served the public interest.

 

[theprestige]

In the U.S., commentary by lawyers and analysts helped the pubic understand the issues in the Chauvin, Rittenhouse, McMichael and other notorious cases. It served the public interest.

More importantly, we have concluded it does not serve the public interest to put a prior restraint on all speech about a trial or adjacent to the trial.

But like I said, there are trade-offs either way. If the Brits think such prior restraint does serve the public interest, and this is working for them, good for them!

 

[Matthew Best]

The prosecution has rested, after Annie Farmer's testimony.

https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2021/dec/10/ghislaine-maxwell-trial-accuser-jeffrey-epstein

Will be interesting to see what the defence case is.

 

[Skeptical Greg]

It would be illegal for the US Government to disallow the press from commenting on an ongoing court case.

Not when those comments would keep the defendant from getting a fair trial.

The right to free speech doesn't count when it violates the rights of someone else.