Following on from my post the other day… I touched on the ethical implications of the freedom we “enjoy” on the internet. Laws, such as contempt of court, may apply to reporting wherever an article’s published, but once illegal material gets on to the internet it can spread, and fast, regardless of whether the original publication is removed.
This week saw the start of the retrial of the death of Khyra Ishaq. A seven-year-old girl who died of starvation. Her mother and step-father are being tried for murder.
What’s interesting about this case, with regards to what we’re discussing, is the following statement as reported in The Guardian online:
“Before the prosecution opened the case, Mr Justice Roderick Evans, the trial judge, instructed the new jury not to search on the internet to find out details of the previous trial.”
Now if I was a juror the first thing I’d be tempted to do is look on the internet. Whether I would or not is a different matter… I’m not on the jury, but I have had a look on the internet.
Taste and decency
There are obviously numerous court reports from the original trial and, as the law allows a reporter to publish what they’ve heard in court, evidence is accessible. But then archived newspapers are also available, so if you were really keen to get your hands on details of the previous trial you could.
Evidence, as reported, aside. What would happen if a member of the previous jury decided to wage war against the defendants? Should they be so inclined, they could publish anything they wanted on a blog or on Twitter, and the rules of taste and decency won’t apply.
It’s great that we have the opportunity to express ourselves in the way we see fit. But if our freedom on the internet starts to interfere with the course of justice (and, in some cases, our physical freedom), then maybe the alarm bells should be starting to ring.
Leave a comment
No comments yet.
tamingthebeast.wordpress.com 
Leave a comment