# George Pell trial: journalists and publishers face court over coverage



## Tommy Tainant

George Pell trial: journalists and publishers face court over coverage

*Three dozen journalists and publishers are to face court on Monday over their coverage of Cardinal George Pell’s trial for child sex abuse, with prosecutors seeking fines and jail terms over accusations of breached gag orders in the case.

Prosecutors in Victoria have accused the 23 journalists and 13 news outlets of aiding and abetting contempt of court by overseas media and breaching suppression orders.

Among those facing contempt charges are Nine Entertainment Co, the Age, the Australian Financial Review, Macquarie Media and several News Corp publications.

Although Monday’s hearing is largely procedural, media experts say the case shows not only the serious consequences of breaching rules on court reporting but also how poorly the rules rein in coverage in the era of digital news.
*
This will be an interesting case.How can we ensure a fair trial in the digital age.

Pells child abuse case was covered by a gagging order. The reasons for this were sensible and correct. After his first trial he had a second trial to follow and the judge believed that jurors in that trial might be influenced by reports from the first.

But how can the gagging order be effective if someone could click on ,for example, this forum and read all about it ?

I am guessing that those on trial filed copy for their US and UK outlets and that is the issue.


----------



## Bob Blaylock

Crap like this goes to show how important it is for a nation to recognize freedom of the press as a basic right that needs to be upheld and protected, always.  This is what happens when a corrupt government is allowed to censor press coverage of important events.






  Reporters, in this case, just for doing their job, face the following…

_Breaches of suppression orders can be punished with jail for up to five years and fines of nearly $100,000 for individuals, and nearly $500,000 for companies._​
  This is exactly why we Americans have freedom of the press explicitly affirmed and protected in the First Amendment to our Constitution; to prevent us from falling into the same savage tyranny that infests shithole nations like Australia and the UK and much of Europe.


----------



## Tommy Tainant

Bob Blaylock said:


> Crap like this goes to show how important it is for a nation to recognize freedom of the press as a basic right that needs to be upheld and protected, always.  This is what happens when a corrupt government is allowed to censor press coverage of important events.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Reporters, in this case, just for doing their job, face the following…
> 
> _Breaches of suppression orders can be punished with jail for up to five years and fines of nearly $100,000 for individuals, and nearly $500,000 for companies._​
> This is exactly why we Americans have freedom of the press explicitly affirmed and protected in the First Amendment to our Constitution; to prevent us from falling into the same savage tyranny that infests shithole nations like Australia and the UK and much of Europe.


Nope, I took the trouble to explain why the Judge imposed the order and it was perfectly reasonable. This issue is way beyond your limited intellect.


----------



## Bob Blaylock

Tommy Tainant said:


> Nope, I took the trouble to explain why the Judge imposed the order and it was perfectly reasonable. This issue is way beyond your limited intellect.



  Once again, all you accomplish is to remind us Americans why it is that we kicked you pathetic British savages out of our country more than two centuries ago.

  The sad thi9ng is that after more than two centuries, you losers still haven't caught up to where we were then.  You actually believe what you just said, that your tyrannical and corrupt government had a good reason to censor this important news, keeping you in comfortable darkness and ignorance.


----------



## Tommy Tainant

Bob Blaylock said:


> Tommy Tainant said:
> 
> 
> 
> Nope, I took the trouble to explain why the Judge imposed the order and it was perfectly reasonable. This issue is way beyond your limited intellect.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Once again, all you accomplish is to remind us Americans why it is that we kicked you pathetic British savages out of our country more than two centuries ago.
> 
> The sad thi9ng is that after more than two centuries, you losers still haven't caught up to where we were then.  You actually believe what you just said, that your tyrannical and corrupt government had a good reason to censor this important news, keeping you in comfortable darkness and ignorance.
> 
> 
> View attachment 256224
Click to expand...


Well we believe that everyone is entitled to a fair trial. Magna Carta and all that. It seems that you do not.How would you ensure a fair trial in this instance? Be specific.


----------



## Tommy Tainant

Bob Blaylock said:


> Tommy Tainant said:
> 
> 
> 
> Nope, I took the trouble to explain why the Judge imposed the order and it was perfectly reasonable. This issue is way beyond your limited intellect.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Once again, all you accomplish is to remind us Americans why it is that we kicked you pathetic British savages out of our country more than two centuries ago.
> 
> The sad thi9ng is that after more than two centuries, you losers still haven't caught up to where we were then.  You actually believe what you just said, that your tyrannical and corrupt government had a good reason to censor this important news, keeping you in comfortable darkness and ignorance.
> 
> 
> View attachment 256224
Click to expand...

You ignorant fucking twat.
You have these orders in the US.
US judge issues gag order in trial of former Trump adviser Roger Stone

So much for your freedoms ya thick ****.


----------



## SweetSue92

Tommy Tainant said:


> George Pell trial: journalists and publishers face court over coverage
> 
> *Three dozen journalists and publishers are to face court on Monday over their coverage of Cardinal George Pell’s trial for child sex abuse, with prosecutors seeking fines and jail terms over accusations of breached gag orders in the case.
> 
> Prosecutors in Victoria have accused the 23 journalists and 13 news outlets of aiding and abetting contempt of court by overseas media and breaching suppression orders.
> 
> Among those facing contempt charges are Nine Entertainment Co, the Age, the Australian Financial Review, Macquarie Media and several News Corp publications.
> 
> Although Monday’s hearing is largely procedural, media experts say the case shows not only the serious consequences of breaching rules on court reporting but also how poorly the rules rein in coverage in the era of digital news.
> *
> This will be an interesting case.How can we ensure a fair trial in the digital age.
> 
> Pells child abuse case was covered by a gagging order. The reasons for this were sensible and correct. After his first trial he had a second trial to follow and the judge believed that jurors in that trial might be influenced by reports from the first.
> 
> But how can the gagging order be effective if someone could click on ,for example, this forum and read all about it ?
> 
> I am guessing that those on trial filed copy for their US and UK outlets and that is the issue.



When your nation goes all completely to Hell--soon--don't even THINK about coming here and importing your nonsense here. We don't want it, or you. Hear me?


----------



## Olde Europe

Tommy Tainant said:


> George Pell trial: journalists and publishers face court over coverage
> 
> *Three dozen journalists and publishers are to face court on Monday over their coverage of Cardinal George Pell’s trial for child sex abuse, with prosecutors seeking fines and jail terms over accusations of breached gag orders in the case.
> 
> Prosecutors in Victoria have accused the 23 journalists and 13 news outlets of aiding and abetting contempt of court by overseas media and breaching suppression orders.
> 
> Among those facing contempt charges are Nine Entertainment Co, the Age, the Australian Financial Review, Macquarie Media and several News Corp publications.
> 
> Although Monday’s hearing is largely procedural, media experts say the case shows not only the serious consequences of breaching rules on court reporting but also how poorly the rules rein in coverage in the era of digital news.
> *
> This will be an interesting case.How can we ensure a fair trial in the digital age.
> 
> Pells child abuse case was covered by a gagging order. The reasons for this were sensible and correct. After his first trial he had a second trial to follow and the judge believed that jurors in that trial might be influenced by reports from the first.
> 
> But how can the gagging order be effective if someone could click on ,for example, this forum and read all about it ?
> 
> I am guessing that those on trial filed copy for their US and UK outlets and that is the issue.




I, for one, tend to view this as bullshit.  If the reasons for the gag order are reasonable, it follows inevitably there are no fair second trials, because the juries in these trials would be unreasonably influenced by reporting on the first.  All told, if juries cannot be trusted to separate information available at trial from information gleaned from other sources, it amounts to an argument against trial by jury, and an argument against public trials.  

So, no, I cannot see anything "reasonable" in this gag order.  In effect, it is the continuation of the Catholic church's work to keep their high-profile child-abuse monsters, and the horrendous rot within the church, out of public view as much as possible.


----------



## Bob Blaylock

Tommy Tainant said:


> You ignorant fucking twat.



  Now, that's funny, coming from someone who prefers ignorance and darkness, who started this thread specifically for the purpose of defending the actions of a corrupt government to keep its people in darkness and ignorance.

  Do you even think before you write crap such as this?

  You're pretty much the model organism of an ignorant Brit, who only knows what your corrupt government wants you to know, and thinks what your corrupt government wants you to think, and says what your corrupt government wants you to say; and you clearly prefer it that way.

  It was for very good reason that we Americans kicked you ignorant savages out of our country more than two centuries ago.


----------



## Tommy Tainant

Olde Europe said:


> Tommy Tainant said:
> 
> 
> 
> George Pell trial: journalists and publishers face court over coverage
> 
> *Three dozen journalists and publishers are to face court on Monday over their coverage of Cardinal George Pell’s trial for child sex abuse, with prosecutors seeking fines and jail terms over accusations of breached gag orders in the case.
> 
> Prosecutors in Victoria have accused the 23 journalists and 13 news outlets of aiding and abetting contempt of court by overseas media and breaching suppression orders.
> 
> Among those facing contempt charges are Nine Entertainment Co, the Age, the Australian Financial Review, Macquarie Media and several News Corp publications.
> 
> Although Monday’s hearing is largely procedural, media experts say the case shows not only the serious consequences of breaching rules on court reporting but also how poorly the rules rein in coverage in the era of digital news.
> *
> This will be an interesting case.How can we ensure a fair trial in the digital age.
> 
> Pells child abuse case was covered by a gagging order. The reasons for this were sensible and correct. After his first trial he had a second trial to follow and the judge believed that jurors in that trial might be influenced by reports from the first.
> 
> But how can the gagging order be effective if someone could click on ,for example, this forum and read all about it ?
> 
> I am guessing that those on trial filed copy for their US and UK outlets and that is the issue.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I, for one, tend to view this as bullshit.  If the reasons for the gag order are reasonable, it follows inevitably there are no fair second trials, because the juries in these trials would be unreasonably influenced by reporting on the first.  All told, if juries cannot be trusted to separate information available at trial from information gleaned from other sources, it amounts to an argument against trial by jury, and an argument against public trials.
> 
> So, no, I cannot see anything "reasonable" in this gag order.  In effect, it is the continuation of the Catholic church's work to keep their high-profile child-abuse monsters, and the horrendous rot within the church, out of public view as much as possible.
Click to expand...

Its a high profile case which would have been widely reported. His second trial would have been compromised had restrictions not been in place.
We may feel that Pell deserves whatever he gets but the rules are there to protect all of us. The issue now is how to protect trials in the internet age. Its a toughie.


----------



## Tommy Tainant

Bob Blaylock said:


> Tommy Tainant said:
> 
> 
> 
> You ignorant fucking twat.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Now, that's funny, coming from someone who prefers ignorance and darkness, who started this thread specifically for the purpose of defending the actions of a corrupt government to keep its people in darkness and ignorance.
> 
> Do you even think before you write crap such as this?
> 
> You're pretty much the model organism of an ignorant Brit, who only knows what your corrupt government wants you to know, and thinks what your corrupt government wants you to think, and says what your corrupt government wants you to say; and you clearly prefer it that way.
> 
> It was for very good reason that we Americans kicked you ignorant savages out of our country more than two centuries ago.
Click to expand...

You havent read the OP, or if you have it has gone over your head. I have explained the reasons and shown you that your government operates similar measures. And yet you still persist with your bovine abuse.In fact all you have is abuse. You seem incapable of engaging with the topic. Probably because it is a bit too complex for you. 

You are a joke.


----------



## Olde Europe

Tommy Tainant said:


> Its a high profile case which would have been widely reported. His second trial would have been compromised had restrictions not been in place.
> We may feel that Pell deserves whatever he gets but the rules are there to protect all of us. The issue now is how to protect trials in the internet age. Its a toughie.



You weren't following my argument.  If a person has had a prior high-profile trial, or so your argument, any further trial thereafter would be "compromised".  So, we can't charge them.  That is obviously absurd.

This all doesn't add up.


----------



## Tommy Tainant

Olde Europe said:


> Tommy Tainant said:
> 
> 
> 
> Its a high profile case which would have been widely reported. His second trial would have been compromised had restrictions not been in place.
> We may feel that Pell deserves whatever he gets but the rules are there to protect all of us. The issue now is how to protect trials in the internet age. Its a toughie.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You weren't following my argument.  If a person has had a prior high-profile trial, or so your argument, any further trial thereafter would be "compromised".  So, we can't charge them.  That is obviously absurd.
> 
> This all doesn't add up.
Click to expand...

Not at all.It is the closeness of the two trials that is the issue. Pell is convicted in the first on friday and steps into court again on the monday on , I assume, similar charges.. There isnt a hope in hell  that he would get a fair trial.
A simple reporting restriction until the second one is resolved ensures fairness and nobody is disadvantaged.


----------



## Olde Europe

Tommy Tainant said:


> Not at all.It is the closeness of the two trials that is the issue. Pell is convicted in the first on friday and steps into court again on the monday on , I assume, similar charges.. There isnt a hope in hell  that he would get a fair trial.
> A simple reporting restriction until the second one is resolved ensures fairness and nobody is disadvantaged.



It's amazing.  You have a high-profile trial behind you, and you get a one-year (two-year?  five year?) hiatus when you can get away with murder because any trial would be compromised.  Why is the flaw of your argument so hard to see?

Or, you get two trials against one person at the same time, the defense teams leak a steady stream about each trial, and each team crows the trial is "compromised" because of public information from the other trial.

And Trump you couldn't charge at all, because everyone has a preconceived notion about him.

Why is all that not a knock-out argument against trial by jury?


----------



## Tommy Tainant

Olde Europe said:


> Tommy Tainant said:
> 
> 
> 
> Not at all.It is the closeness of the two trials that is the issue. Pell is convicted in the first on friday and steps into court again on the monday on , I assume, similar charges.. There isnt a hope in hell  that he would get a fair trial.
> A simple reporting restriction until the second one is resolved ensures fairness and nobody is disadvantaged.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It's amazing.  You have a high-profile trial behind you, and you get a one-year (two-year?  five year?) hiatus when you can get away with murder because any trial would be compromised.  Why is the flaw of your argument so hard to see?
> 
> Or, you get two trials against one person at the same time, the defense teams leak a steady stream about each trial, and each team crows the trial is "compromised" because of public information from the other trial.
> 
> And Trump you couldn't charge at all, because everyone has a preconceived notion about him.
> 
> Why is all that not a knock-out argument against trial by jury?
Click to expand...

Trial by jury protects us from the over mighty state. Would you want a trump appointed judge sitting in judgement on a gay,black, muslim climate change protester ? Its not perfect and you highlight potential issues but its better than the alternative..


----------

