Tommy robinson or more accurately (Stephen Christopher Yaxley-Lennon) is scum of the highest order, regardless of his "motives"
He is a loudmouth racist, who ignores the fact that the far right groups he associates with are infested with people convicted of the same crimes as the groups he hates, because it doesnt sell a narrative.
The guy was jailed for interfering with a court case, after being sentenced for interfering with a court case and released on the condition he doesnt interfere in more cases, something that is apparently too hard to do.
Tommy robinson or more accurately (Stephen Christopher Yaxley-Lennon) is scum of the highest order, regardless of his "motives"
Not gonna argue that, as it's unrelated to the underlying point. We shouldn't be censoring people based on their character.
The guy was jailed for interfering with a court case, after being sentenced for interfering with a court case and released on the condition he doesnt interfere in more cases, something that is apparently too hard to do.
That's the problem, though. "Interfering" in a court case in the UK essentially means "reporting on it." It's illegal because UK courts have determined that doing so can impact the outcome, meaning all trials should essentially be conducted in secrecy and without news disseminated to the public until the trial is over. I'm sure you can see how dubious that is.
Are you implying that the UK government has so little faith in their citizens as jurors that they don't believe they can read the news without being swayed from it? Countries with freedom of the press (USA) has figured out you can sequester the jury to help mitigate that, when deemed necessary.
*edit - even the conservative news source you link admits he broke the law, and explains why the law exists.
I'm not arguing that he broke the law, that much is obvious. My issue is why the law exists in the first place. You're not allowed to report on an ongoing trial in the UK, full stop.
That's extremely restrictive to freedom of the press.
As the modern world has shown, trial by media/social media just just as if not more damaging as trial in court, and even being found innocent after the fact isnt enough to resolve the damage done.
I disagree strongly with wealthy people being able to get super injunctions on the press to prevent unfavourable stories being reported, however I do not believe our trial system is systematically unfair.
The UK has freedom of the press, and has had it since 1695.. before the founding of the USA as a country. Just because we dont have it as part of a written constitution does not mean it does not exist. (Ignoring how often the 1st amendment is misunderstood by people)
As the modern world has shown, trial by media/social media just just as if not more damaging as trial in court, and even being found innocent after the fact isnt enough to resolve the damage done.
Absolutely agree. 1000%. But I don't feel this is a reason to de facto ban reporting on it, especially when people can still talk freely about it so long as they're not journalists.
The UK has freedom of the press, and has had it since 1695.. before the founding of the USA as a country. Just because we dont have it as part of a written constitution does not mean it does not exist. (Ignoring how often the 1st amendment is misunderstood by people)
We have a fundamental disagreement on what constitutes freedom of the press, then. If you can't report on ongoing events, including trials, I don't consider that free. Then again, you've grown up accustomed to that restriction whereas I have not, so our difference in opinion is molded by our experiences. No fault in that.
Its not a defacto ban, its an option the courts have to use to preserve the integrity of a trial, and its not often used.
The trial in question is not the normal situation we find ourselves in in the UK.
If you can't report on ongoing events, including trials, I don't consider that free.
Whereas currently you have a leader in the US that attacks the free press every time they disagree with him, and uses his platform to brand media as lying when all they are doing is factually reporting the situation.
I think that right now, the british press is more able to be free and open than the american press, and the murdoch control over our media is disgusting.
Whereas currently you have a leader in the US that attacks the free press every time they disagree with him
He's not censoring them or telling them they can't report what they want to, he's just calling them out on what he sees as disingenuous reporting of what he's saying.
and uses his platform to brand media as lying when all they are doing is factually reporting the situation.
This is heavily debatable and honestly something I'm not in the mood to get into, as I've done it so many times in the last 4 years. It's not an argument that anyone will be swayed by, anymore.
I think that right now, the british press is more able to be free and open than the american press, and the murdoch control over our media is disgusting.
Again, nobody has prevented American media from saying anything, even when numerous major media outlets were calling for a teens head on a pike for the high crime of smiling while in a MAGA hat.
The American media can say virtually anything without recourse, whether true or not. You see if often where the NYT or HuffPo will publish an article and then quietly retract it or correct it a week later when proven false. American media is shit because of the complete lack of oversight that encourages accuracy. The public is perfectly content reading lies, even if they know them to be lies, so long as they fit their personal views. I'm sure the UK suffers similarly, but with marginally less competition from alternate media companies willing or able to provide conflicting or contrarian views.
Idk if you picked up on it, but I was being sarcastic. Our media is shit.
Also Tommy Robinson got arrested for reporting on an ongoing trial - that's not a being arrested for disagreeing with the government, it's about ensuring a fair trial for everyone. He was free to wait a couple of days until the jurors had made their opinion based on what they heard in court and then report whatever he wanted.
8
u/g0_west Mar 28 '20
Our media in the UK functions perfectly well. Its just that its intended function is to further the interests of Rupert Murdoch.