Let's talk reporting restrictions.
#FreeTommy #FreeTommyRobinson
From the British perspective - our system is equally incomprehensible, because allowing the media to sensationalize cases makes trials unfair.
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?
With that said, their laws are still overly punitive and totally anachronistic.
If fair jury trials are a paramount value, shouldn't Tommy Robinson get one?
The British are willing to impose brutal, punitive sentences - without a jury trial - to maintain the fairness of jury trials.
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…
As much as we hate on the MSM, random twitter users (like me) aren't great at fact-checking.
My thread went viral anyway.
Maybe it would be better if professional journalists were reporting on this stuff?
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.
The overbroad restriction caused a Streisand effect - and brought more attention to the underlying case.
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