New regulations will not muzzle free speech
NEW regulations are to be introduced to allow only ‘ bona fide’ journalists and lawyers to text or use social media from within courtrooms. The Chief Justice Frank Clarke outlined that the new practice has already been agreed and will come into effect this month.
The reasoning is, that better regulation will protect the court process and ensure that defendants have a fair trial, rather than risking a jury being influenced by unverified social media posts.
A major problem we face today, is that everyone with a smart phone believes they are a journalist and that ‘freedom of speech’ is a defence for posting whatever they wish, regardless of whether it is within reporting guidelines or not. Anyone who says that this move will muzzle free speech or feed into corruption within the legal system is completely ill-informed.
With the exception of a few types of cases such as juvenile matters or abuse cases where the victim has the right to anonymity, criminal court cases are heard in a public forum for anyone who wishes to sit in the public gallery.
The problem that these new guidelines seek to address is that of members of the public circulating information rather than trained professionals, often who may do so in a reckless manner.
These regulations aren’t being introduced to stop people from discussing cases or sharing their opinions, but rather to ensure that the system is not compromised.
Both defendants and victims have the right to a fair and robust system and irresponsible sharing of information could potentially damage this.
We only have to look at what happened in the Belfast rape trial when the complainant’s identity was put into the public domain through social media.
This action completely compromised the woman’s right to anonymity and was later the subject of a separate criminal case.
Really, members of the public should not be discussing ongoing court proceedings from within the courtroom, whether through text messages or on social media.
It is up to the court to decide the outcome and the process is in place for a reason.
After it has ruled, then there is nothing stopping anyone from sharing their opinion, without fear of jeopardising any fair hearing.