Thread by @willchamberlain

This thread from @lizziedearden does a much better job than I did at explaining contempt law and reporting restrictions in the UK. (hat tip, again, to the tireless @nickmon1112)

Let's talk reporting restrictions.

#FreeTommy #FreeTommyRobinson

External Tweet loading...
If nothing shows, it may have been deleted
by @nickmon1112 view original on Twitter

Yesterday I found reporting restrictions nearly incomprehensible. They seem like an obvious affront to freedom of the press.

From the British perspective - our system is equally incomprehensible, because allowing the media to sensationalize cases makes trials unfair.

And, really, the British have a point.

Think about the Harvey Weinstein case. He's been effectively convicted in the eyes of the entire public before his trial has even started. Can you imagine any jurors really coming in as a blank slate?

So, I get where the British are coming from.

With that said, their laws are still overly punitive and totally anachronistic.

For all of the concerns about maintaining the fairness of jury trials - judges can SUMMARILY throw you in jail for up to two years for contempt WITHOUT a jury trial.

If fair jury trials are a paramount value, shouldn't Tommy Robinson get one?

In the United States, throwing someone in jail for longer than 6 months requires a jury trial. Tommy got 13 months on the whim of an angry judge.

The British are willing to impose brutal, punitive sentences - without a jury trial - to maintain the fairness of jury trials.

Moreover, reporting restrictions are anachronistic. You can't prevent information from getting out on social media.

Reporting restrictions don't even achieve their objective of making trials fair in high-profile cases - which makes them unjust. via.library.depaul.edu/cgi/viewconten…

Finally, as @lizziedearden points out, reporting restrictions mean that professional journalists - and their fact checkers - aren't on the case.

As much as we hate on the MSM, random twitter users (like me) aren't great at fact-checking.

I made a number of mistakes yesterday - named the wrong judge, got contempt law wrong, got the Supreme Court case on point wrong.

My thread went viral anyway.

Maybe it would be better if professional journalists were reporting on this stuff?

Finally - THIS reporting restriction, in particular, is still totally unjustifiable.

The restriction is on Tommy's case - despite the fact that there is no jury trial.

It functions to shield this court and the judge from criticism, while doing nothing to protect others.

If the judge wanted to protect the defendants in the underlying trial, he could have tailored the gag order to discussion of *that* case - not Tommy's contempt conviction.

The overbroad restriction caused a Streisand effect - and brought more attention to the underlying case.

To sum up:

1) There are non-crazy reasons why the UK has reporting restrictions
2) Reporting restrictions are still dumb, anachronistic, and counterproductive
3) Applying a reporting restriction to Tommy's entire case is an abuse of power and counterproductive

FIN