It's high time our courts got rid of the ludicrous publication bans that are preventing Canadians from know what is going on in our names.
As proven in the Gomery Commission hearings, the media has changed and information has a way of getting out regardless of what the starched shirts want to see happen. The news is no longer disseminated on broadsheet pages. It's digital, it's fast and it's everywhere. Information is king and efforts to slow or stop the flow are doomed to fail.
And so what? Our courts have traditionally tried to contain information within the four walls of the courtroom on the basis of ensuring the accused gets a fair trial and the public's mind is free of any information which might bias their way of thinking.
But, can that argument really be made with any credibility any more? Look at the Michael Jackson case for the best argument that refutes the court's position. Jacko may be whacko, but despite all the publicity he wasn't found guilty.
I can't imagine how there could have been any more publicity about that case both before and after the trial started. The web site The Smoking Gun even managed to get documents posted that the mainstream media had tried and failed to obtain. Anyone on the planet could have found out all the evidence including the details of the previous settlement with the other boy long before the first jurror was picked. Yet, the system worked as it was designed to do and a jury rendered its verdict.
Can anyone say that his rights were abused by the phalanx of publicity? Hardly.
It's long past time the antiquated and moribund justice system in Canada allowed itself to join the rest of the world in the new millenium. A good start would be in the Pickton case. The trial against the accused serial killer is soon to start and the arguments about the publication bans are taking too much time and costing everyone too much money. Most especially the taxpayer.
The media will cover the case. The Blogosphere will report on the facts and rumours. But, at the end of the day, 12 people will responsibly do their duty no matter what has been said, broadcast or reported.
Leo Knight
leo@primetimecrime.com
As proven in the Gomery Commission hearings, the media has changed and information has a way of getting out regardless of what the starched shirts want to see happen. The news is no longer disseminated on broadsheet pages. It's digital, it's fast and it's everywhere. Information is king and efforts to slow or stop the flow are doomed to fail.
And so what? Our courts have traditionally tried to contain information within the four walls of the courtroom on the basis of ensuring the accused gets a fair trial and the public's mind is free of any information which might bias their way of thinking.
But, can that argument really be made with any credibility any more? Look at the Michael Jackson case for the best argument that refutes the court's position. Jacko may be whacko, but despite all the publicity he wasn't found guilty.
I can't imagine how there could have been any more publicity about that case both before and after the trial started. The web site The Smoking Gun even managed to get documents posted that the mainstream media had tried and failed to obtain. Anyone on the planet could have found out all the evidence including the details of the previous settlement with the other boy long before the first jurror was picked. Yet, the system worked as it was designed to do and a jury rendered its verdict.
Can anyone say that his rights were abused by the phalanx of publicity? Hardly.
It's long past time the antiquated and moribund justice system in Canada allowed itself to join the rest of the world in the new millenium. A good start would be in the Pickton case. The trial against the accused serial killer is soon to start and the arguments about the publication bans are taking too much time and costing everyone too much money. Most especially the taxpayer.
The media will cover the case. The Blogosphere will report on the facts and rumours. But, at the end of the day, 12 people will responsibly do their duty no matter what has been said, broadcast or reported.
Leo Knight
leo@primetimecrime.com
Posts
5 comments:
I wasn't aware you had a blog until now. I follow most of your columns when time allows and I have been doing so over the last year. I enjoy what you have to say and I agree with many of your thoughts regarding Canada.
Well I think you've hit the crux of it. The judge can think up any creative publication ban he deems neccessary, but I'd like to know how they are going to prevent me (down here in North Carolina)from writing whatever I wish about the Pickton case on my blog.
And that is exactly the point John. It's no different than the CRTC trying to tell us we can't watch Fox News or HBO. Technology is so far ahead of the pointy-headed ones. Justice is ostensibly carried out in our name. We must be allowed to see and know what is being done in our name.
Justice in our name...
Yes, the only logical use I can see in a publication ban is to prevent the public from seeing how law enforcement might have screwed up (in our name).
I'm thinking Bernardo here, and forshadowing Pickton.
John A
www.whokilledtheresa.blogspot.com
Could it be possible that the jury system has become obsolete because of the increase in information technologies and blogs?
Could it also be possible that the 'blog' is a potential means to "get the message out" and uncover the uncoverable, and diseminate the news, blow the whistle and expose the injustices in Canada and the world that need to be exposed? Is this the media tool of the future?
We live in interesting times....
Post a Comment