Dogwatcher
Premiership Player
- Joined
- Jul 10, 2002
- Posts
- 4,289
- Reaction score
- 7
- Location
- Loxton, SA
- AFL Club
- Collingwood
- Other Teams
- Central District, Moorook
You guys may enjoy this. Maybe not. Thought I'd chuck it on anyway. Essay for a journalism course I'm doing.
Striking a balance
Through my readings for this assignment, I can only suggest that the country’s sub judice laws are appropriate.
Perhaps that is a naïve belief, but I have yet to experience a situation where the sub judice laws have had a negative impact on what I publish.
We do not name those charged with crimes in our community, whether we are legally entitled to or not. This decision results in the identity issue, which I understand to be the greatest concern to journalists covering court cases, not being a major problem for the newspaper.
We also do not have in depth coverage of court hearings within our region, removing most other sub-judice issues from our concern. Any coverage that we do provide is generally well after the fact.
Not naming those charged with criminal offences, even at the completion of a major case, is an editorial decision that we have made in order to avoid embarrassing family members within our community.
Family members in small communities have enough to deal with in regards to gossip and innuendo when criminal charges are laid, without our newspaper adding to the problem.
However, a newspaper in South Australia’s South-East takes a different stance in relation to drink-driving offences, revealing the names of those charged with that crime.
It is an interesting decision, particularly the newspaper does not print the names of people accused of other crimes. How did they decide that drink-driving offences are worse than drug dealing or house breaking?
While I believe that the sub judice laws that influence journalists are operating efficiently, the expansion of the internet into every day usage by the community has opened up new questions regarding contempt of court issues for journalists, making this issue one of great concern.
It is easy to regulate what appears in a newspaper or television or radio bulletin, it is not so easy to regulate the internet.
Many media outlets now use the internet as a source of research, while they also have web sites where the public can freely post their opinions on issues.
Derryn Hinch (Hinch v AG (Vic), 1987) was found guilty of contempt when he revealed the name of an accused paedophile over the radio, but the public could freely publish names or information that may infringe upon the accused’s right to a fair trial on the internet without fear of punishment.
There appears to be no regulation of the content published on internet website forums, allowing assertions of guilt to be published prior to a trial being completed.
As an example, one recent discussion on one Australian rules football internet forum centred upon allegations that a Melbourne based footballer had been charged with masturbating in a public place.
The Melbourne football public’s huge interest in any gossip relating to the sport eventually resulted in the identity of the footballer alleged to have been involved being revealed on the forum.
Further posts expressed the belief that the incident had occurred outside of a primary school and that the man in question was arrested by an off duty police officer.
If the footballer had been charged, the posts were clearly sub judice as proceedings are pending. There could also be defamation issues, particularly if the player named had not been arrested or if the substance of the story was incorrect.
These comments were not written by paid journalists, but were expressed in a forum similar to a letter to the editor’s page in a newspaper or a vox pop on television.
While this incident did not occur on a website affiliated to a traditional media outlet, similar comments on a website operated by a major newspaper would most likely have resulted in sub judice charges. The new media must also take more care when allowing these sorts of comments to be published.
Web site operators and moderators are going to need to be more responsible in the future. As the internet becomes more and more a part of everyday life there will be greater opportunity for a court case to be impeded by false or contemptuous information being published in this arena.
I believe that the Australian justice system is soon going to be confronted by a sub judice issue relating to new media publications and forums and some measures to prevent that from occurring may need to be taken.
Striking a balance
Through my readings for this assignment, I can only suggest that the country’s sub judice laws are appropriate.
Perhaps that is a naïve belief, but I have yet to experience a situation where the sub judice laws have had a negative impact on what I publish.
We do not name those charged with crimes in our community, whether we are legally entitled to or not. This decision results in the identity issue, which I understand to be the greatest concern to journalists covering court cases, not being a major problem for the newspaper.
We also do not have in depth coverage of court hearings within our region, removing most other sub-judice issues from our concern. Any coverage that we do provide is generally well after the fact.
Not naming those charged with criminal offences, even at the completion of a major case, is an editorial decision that we have made in order to avoid embarrassing family members within our community.
Family members in small communities have enough to deal with in regards to gossip and innuendo when criminal charges are laid, without our newspaper adding to the problem.
However, a newspaper in South Australia’s South-East takes a different stance in relation to drink-driving offences, revealing the names of those charged with that crime.
It is an interesting decision, particularly the newspaper does not print the names of people accused of other crimes. How did they decide that drink-driving offences are worse than drug dealing or house breaking?
While I believe that the sub judice laws that influence journalists are operating efficiently, the expansion of the internet into every day usage by the community has opened up new questions regarding contempt of court issues for journalists, making this issue one of great concern.
It is easy to regulate what appears in a newspaper or television or radio bulletin, it is not so easy to regulate the internet.
Many media outlets now use the internet as a source of research, while they also have web sites where the public can freely post their opinions on issues.
Derryn Hinch (Hinch v AG (Vic), 1987) was found guilty of contempt when he revealed the name of an accused paedophile over the radio, but the public could freely publish names or information that may infringe upon the accused’s right to a fair trial on the internet without fear of punishment.
There appears to be no regulation of the content published on internet website forums, allowing assertions of guilt to be published prior to a trial being completed.
As an example, one recent discussion on one Australian rules football internet forum centred upon allegations that a Melbourne based footballer had been charged with masturbating in a public place.
The Melbourne football public’s huge interest in any gossip relating to the sport eventually resulted in the identity of the footballer alleged to have been involved being revealed on the forum.
Further posts expressed the belief that the incident had occurred outside of a primary school and that the man in question was arrested by an off duty police officer.
If the footballer had been charged, the posts were clearly sub judice as proceedings are pending. There could also be defamation issues, particularly if the player named had not been arrested or if the substance of the story was incorrect.
These comments were not written by paid journalists, but were expressed in a forum similar to a letter to the editor’s page in a newspaper or a vox pop on television.
While this incident did not occur on a website affiliated to a traditional media outlet, similar comments on a website operated by a major newspaper would most likely have resulted in sub judice charges. The new media must also take more care when allowing these sorts of comments to be published.
Web site operators and moderators are going to need to be more responsible in the future. As the internet becomes more and more a part of everyday life there will be greater opportunity for a court case to be impeded by false or contemptuous information being published in this arena.
I believe that the Australian justice system is soon going to be confronted by a sub judice issue relating to new media publications and forums and some measures to prevent that from occurring may need to be taken.
