Tommy Robinson Arrested for "Breaching the Peace"

 Pages PREV 1 2 3 4 NEXT
 

Major Tom:
Wait, Palmer is still a thing? I thought he faded into obscurity when his party imploded.

He might, but God knows our country has no shortage of racist billionaires.

runic knight:
I find any sort of gag on reporting on a case to be entirely worthless, given how easily and often reports on suspect's name and charges end up reported on in general. If the concern about protecting the interests of the accused is important a concept, it should be preserved entirely, not selectively, for all defendants. Anything less and you end up with what you see here, with it coming off more as politically motivated punishments derived from harsh responses to often arbitrarily decided gags in the first place.
If the protection is more important than public interest in a person accused of breaking the laws of the society, all deserve it fairly. If it is not that important, than no one should get special consideration or exception from being reported upon. If the law is not equally enforced, then all it does is validate ever claim of legal favoritism, or political antagonism.

Well, for the reasons I mentioned above, it's becoming harder and harder to enforce these kinds of gag orders as technology advances and news interests become less centralised, less professional and more global. Trust me when I say that the judges would just love to have a magic button that they could press that would make all the reporters shut up about a particularly sensitive case, but they can't always pull it off.

The judge's main concern is to ensure that the trial is not prejudiced by outside factors. That's their motivation. That means they often issue gag orders of this sort on what is effectively an apolitical basis; they are more concerned with what might prejudice the trial than with what might upset a particular political narrative. But because these gag orders are relatively easy to circumvent - as Tommy Robinson demonstrates - the judges actually have very little control over the consistency of the reporting. If a media organisation has a vested interest in promoting a specific political agenda, and they hear of a case that might support that agenda if its details were made public, then nine times out of then they'll have have the resources and the ability to report on it no matter what the judge wants.

runic knight:
The point was the hypocrisy of those who express concern about the death of free journalism when Trump criticizes it, yet have fallen in line and abandoned the view that the public has the right to know or that a government agent declaring what can or can not be reported is a real threat to journalism itself when it comes to this case.

Well, alright. Speaking as one of those people, my response is this: I don't like these gag orders, and I'm sure that most journalists also don't like them, but at the same time I recognise that not only are these orders sometimes necessary, but that they are really just one tool in a vast suite of powers that judges have at their beck and call of which the average person is mostly unaware.

Judges are really quite tremendously powerful individuals. They literally decide what the law means, and if you say otherwise in their courtroom they can lock you the fuck up straight away. That's one of the first things law students are taught. The second is that because judges are so powerful, they are held to a much higher standard than most public officials and subject to a great deal of scrutiny - not to mention bound by ironclad professional norms. Being a judge is like being a Jedi or a wizard; you can speak the arcane words of ritual that wreak tremendous havoc on people's lives and livelihoods, you wield a magic hammer that makes everybody shut the fuck up, and you're always a few bad steps away from turning into Darth Vader or Skeletor or some shit. (And you wear goofy robes all day.)

But the reason why Judge Vaders are rare is because the judges know all this shit, and police themselves quite strictly as a result - knowing that if they let a corrupt judge stand for too long, they risk the entire office having its powers neutered by popular outrage. That's why judges recuse themselves to avoid accusations of bias, and it's why court decisions almost always go into the public record where they are open to critical scrutiny. And it's why the gag orders they can put out are often strictly limited; it's very common for a court to issue a gag order, particularly in sex crime cases, but it's very rare for that gag order to be indefinite and all-encompassing. (Court records can be sealed indefinitely under certain circumstances - such as juvenile offenders or state secrets - but the record is still there, and a later judge can order them unsealed.) And - as anyone can see from the subject matter of this thread - those gag orders aren't hard to get around. So if a judge ever handed down a gag order for corrupt purposes, it would be relatively easy for a journalist to get around that, and it would make a heck of a story.

That's too long of an explanation, I realise. The tl;dr is that I am occasionally concerned with the application of gag orders, but I'm also practical enough to recognise that they're sometimes appropriate. In this case, I understand that the gag order was always limited to the duration of the trial. That's a fair rule of thumb used by judges to balance free speech while avoiding trial prejudice, and it's one I mostly accept.

runic knight:
Very little of what you said matters to the topic itself, or the point of complaint.

For someone blathering on about what Twitterati say about Donald Trump, you're the last person who should be accusing anyone else of writing stuff that doesn't matter to the topic.

You wrote about this merely as "totalitarianism" or akin to mafia silencing, with no awareness whatsoever of the rationale for the law; that's the core accusation I'm levelling. That you're trying to argue against a mere illustrative example rather the core accusation only makes it appear even more likely you had no idea what you were talking about.

Bans on reporting in this case come off less like a "we will report it later" and more like "We will wait til public interest to die off and hope they forget about this"

Sure, conspiracy theorists will believe what they want to believe. However, institutional processes have a lot of other wider concerns to take into account than such mindsets.

Hell, in delaying it, it may even prevent victims coming forward...

Er, it's a court case. That means the police and state have already thoroughly investigated and prepared everything they should need to pursue prosecution - including, naturally, having identified the victims.

evilthecat:

runic knight:
I find any sort of gag on reporting on a case to be entirely worthless, given how easily and often reports on suspect's name and charges end up reported on in general.

Right, but that information wasn't restricted and has been freely reported on.

And the decision to make it restricted or not is my point. Either all deserve the protections under the law, or none do. That it is arbitrarily decided is the problem, and justifies any claims of it being politically motivated in the decision.

runic knight:
If the concern about protecting the interests of the accused is important a concept, it should be preserved entirely, not selectively, for all defendants.

It is, which is why we have these kinds of reporting restrictions. Judges are obliged to impose reporting restrictions on any case in which there is a clear risk that the release of certain information could prejudice the jury. Heck, Tommy Robison's first contempt of court hearing was subject to reporting restrictions, since it took place in connection with another trial.

He was initially arrested in 2017 and found guilty of contempt of court in connection with section 41 of the Criminal Justice act 1925, which prohibits recording or photography inside a court room. This law applies to everyone and to any courtroom. Even national news teams are not allowed to take cameras onto court premises. The judge ruled that, given the content of his broadcast, his attempt to film despite having been told he was not permitted to do so and despite clear signs pointing out that it was illegal posed a very real risk of disrupting or prejudicing the court proceedings and could have caused serious harm to the integrity of the trial. Had he not been stopped, the defence could even have moved to have the trial postponed, causing immense cost to the taxpayer, denying justice to the alleged victims and leaving the accused in legal limbo.

Hence he was given a relatively short suspended sentence (effectively a warning that if he did the same thing within an 18 month period he would face prison).

All of this could have been avoided had he simply kept his livestream off court premises and thus avoided breaking the law, the same law everyone abides by, from members of the public to massive news organisations, plenty of whom reported on this trial, but none of whom brought cameras onto court premises, none of whom claimed the defendants were paedophiles before they had been sentenced, and none of whom deliberately attempted to disrupt the trial or oppose the pursuit of fair justice.

All of this could have been avoided had he not, after having been found in contempt of court, decided to return to a different courthouse, to once again film on court premises and to continue "reporting" on criminal proceedings knowing full well that he was breaching the terms of his suspended sentence. He admitted to being in contempt of court, even he doesn't contest that he committed a crime.

And if the complaint was ever one of the legality itself, you might have a point. Fortunately, that was never my contesting of it, rather, the problem with the law as it was utilized, and the nature of applying the protections that are so important in such a worthless way. My problem was the morality and the functionality of it, not if it actually broke the law or not.

Him broadcasting about the trial off the courthouse property is entirely acceptable under the law. On the property but still outside the building is not. That is a difference of a single step, so the protections offered isn't really a thing in that case (difference between in a courtroom and outside the building at least being a worthwhile on). Functionally, it is an arbitrary and nearly nonsensical "letter of the law" sort of punishment. The difference of that step when reporting on the case changes nothing in the reporting or the ability of the reporting to affect the jury, as is the justification of the concern. But that step, that letter of the law designation, is what determines legality in this case.

Sort of reminds me of a lot of complaints about moderation here, actually.

Morally, the same problem as before exists. The decision to impose the restriction or not is still individually applied not a constant. That this case is decided to be given that sort of protection but another may not is exactly why it justifies claims of it being politically motivated, both in giving one defendant greater protections than another, and in punishing those who breech those arbitrarily provided protections for that defendant more or less harshly than that of another.

So you have an intentional impediment of speech and public interest in the name of protecting a defendant by way of method that is not consistently called upon, nor consistency punished, and done to a situation where the legality of it was determined by the location of the recording whose physical placement offered no change whatsoever to the type of recoding made at the time and would make absolutely no impact in the ability of the recording to influence the jury.

And all that is before even the ban on reporting on his arrest.

How many times is a person allowed to break the law before it becomes permissible to punish them?

Ask anyone who had to sit in the back of the bus.

You mistake justifying enforcement of legality with my actual complaints about the morality and functional usefulness of the decision.

Samtemdo8:
Sargon of Akkad exposing is favoritism to the English Defense League by stating that Tommy Robinson should be placed in solitary confinement or else he will go to a jail full of extremist muslim prison gangs which presumably will endanger Tommy:

And stating that England is not a free country if you say bad things about immigration and muslims.

These people think that they are in a 1984 Orwellian Nightmare were criticizing Islam and Immigration is considered a Thoughtcrime.

I'll take Sargon seriously when he goes after the right wing for their own bullshit.

WolvDragon:

Samtemdo8:
Sargon of Akkad exposing is favoritism to the English Defense League by stating that Tommy Robinson should be placed in solitary confinement or else he will go to a jail full of extremist muslim prison gangs which presumably will endanger Tommy:

And stating that England is not a free country if you say bad things about immigration and muslims.

These people think that they are in a 1984 Orwellian Nightmare were criticizing Islam and Immigration is considered a Thoughtcrime.

I'll take Sargon seriously when he goes after the right wing for their own bullshit.

He did, once or twice:

Unless the UK Conversitive Pary is a different kind of Right Wing than the Right Wing you are espousing?

Samtemdo8:

WolvDragon:

Samtemdo8:
Sargon of Akkad exposing is favoritism to the English Defense League by stating that Tommy Robinson should be placed in solitary confinement or else he will go to a jail full of extremist muslim prison gangs which presumably will endanger Tommy:

And stating that England is not a free country if you say bad things about immigration and muslims.

These people think that they are in a 1984 Orwellian Nightmare were criticizing Islam and Immigration is considered a Thoughtcrime.

I'll take Sargon seriously when he goes after the right wing for their own bullshit.

He did, once or twice:

Unless the UK Conversitive Pary is a different kind of Right Wing than the Right Wing you are espousing?

Well I mean like the Alt-Right and shit. Has he gone after those types of fringe characters? I don't know if the Right Wing of the UK would fall into the Right Wing of American politics, I often seen people compare the Democrats to the UK Conservative party. Well in a way the Dems are a right wing party anyway.

bastardofmelbourne:

runic knight:
I find any sort of gag on reporting on a case to be entirely worthless, given how easily and often reports on suspect's name and charges end up reported on in general. If the concern about protecting the interests of the accused is important a concept, it should be preserved entirely, not selectively, for all defendants. Anything less and you end up with what you see here, with it coming off more as politically motivated punishments derived from harsh responses to often arbitrarily decided gags in the first place.
If the protection is more important than public interest in a person accused of breaking the laws of the society, all deserve it fairly. If it is not that important, than no one should get special consideration or exception from being reported upon. If the law is not equally enforced, then all it does is validate ever claim of legal favoritism, or political antagonism.

Well, for the reasons I mentioned above, it's becoming harder and harder to enforce these kinds of gag orders as technology advances and news interests become less centralised, less professional and more global. Trust me when I say that the judges would just love to have a magic button that they could press that would make all the reporters shut up about a particularly sensitive case, but they can't always pull it off.

The judge's main concern is to ensure that the trial is not prejudiced by outside factors. That's their motivation. That means they often issue gag orders of this sort on what is effectively an apolitical basis; they are more concerned with what might prejudice the trial than with what might upset a particular political narrative. But because these gag orders are relatively easy to circumvent - as Tommy Robinson demonstrates - the judges actually have very little control over the consistency of the reporting. If a media organisation has a vested interest in promoting a specific political agenda, and they hear of a case that might support that agenda if its details were made public, then nine times out of then they'll have have the resources and the ability to report on it no matter what the judge wants.

Hasn't keeping jurors sequestered from media influence been a common staple of american trials for decades, if not longer? I would think the obvious effectiveness at keeping outside influence at bay by doing that would be pretty obvious by now, especially in a situation where, as you describe, technology makes it harder and harder.

Functionally, the methods discussed here are pretty worthless all around, making the decision to punish people harshly even less justifiable, as well as open to abuse or intentional manipulation.

runic knight:
The point was the hypocrisy of those who express concern about the death of free journalism when Trump criticizes it, yet have fallen in line and abandoned the view that the public has the right to know or that a government agent declaring what can or can not be reported is a real threat to journalism itself when it comes to this case.

Well, alright. Speaking as one of those people, my response is this: I don't like these gag orders, and I'm sure that most journalists also don't like them, but at the same time I recognise that not only are these orders sometimes necessary, but that they are really just one tool in a vast suite of powers that judges have at their beck and call of which the average person is mostly unaware.

Judges are really quite tremendously powerful individuals. They literally decide what the law means, and if you say otherwise in their courtroom they can lock you the fuck up straight away. That's one of the first things law students are taught. The second is that because judges are so powerful, they are held to a much higher standard than most public officials and subject to a great deal of scrutiny - not to mention bound by ironclad professional norms. Being a judge is like being a Jedi or a wizard; you can speak the arcane words of ritual that wreak tremendous havoc on people's lives and livelihoods, you wield a magic hammer that makes everybody shut the fuck up, and you're always a few bad steps away from turning into Darth Vader or Skeletor or some shit. (And you wear goofy robes all day.)

But the reason why Judge Vaders are rare is because the judges know all this shit, and police themselves quite strictly as a result - knowing that if they let a corrupt judge stand for too long, they risk the entire office having its powers neutered by popular outrage. That's why judges recuse themselves to avoid accusations of bias, and it's why court decisions almost always go into the public record where they are open to critical scrutiny. And it's why the gag orders they can put out are often strictly limited; it's very common for a court to issue a gag order, particularly in sex crime cases, but it's very rare for that gag order to be indefinite and all-encompassing. (Court records can be sealed indefinitely under certain circumstances - such as juvenile offenders or state secrets - but the record is still there, and a later judge can order them unsealed.) And - as anyone can see from the subject matter of this thread - those gag orders aren't hard to get around. So if a judge ever handed down a gag order for corrupt purposes, it would be relatively easy for a journalist to get around that, and it would make a heck of a story.

That's too long of an explanation, I realise. The tl;dr is that I am occasionally concerned with the application of gag orders, but I'm also practical enough to recognise that they're sometimes appropriate. In this case, I understand that the gag order was always limited to the duration of the trial. That's a fair rule of thumb used by judges to balance free speech while avoiding trial prejudice, and it's one I mostly accept.

Legislatures used to be respected and held to high standards too. Now congressmen are near-universally seen as untrustworthy and underhanded individuals. And judges have many examples of historical corruption of various methods. Even today, there seems to have been an increase in political statements made by judge rulings, as attempts to hang up politically disliked legislation or executive actions has resulted in numerous attempts to strike them down that are then punted up to higher courts to settle. So their character as a general profession is not a good justification for the morality of the action itself in general, let alone in this specific case.

As it is, public interest and free speech should be weighed against the rights of the defendants and whatever that outcome is, that should be applied universally as the default. If the protections of influencing a trial is more important than people knowing about it happening, then that should be the default and not decided by a judge if the defendant should have that protection or not. If that is not the case, then the singular judge should not have the ability to sweepingly affect the right to speech of everyone else, and determine what is or is not in the public interest, on their whim. Consistency and equal protections under the law are very critical, and should be sought out.

You say judges are powerful, and you are entirely right there. But that power should be checked some to safeguard against misuse, or, as in this case, to prevent the appearance of impropriety in decisions that create a greater risk to the judge's abilities.

In this instance, a man was arrested for breaking a censor and reporting on a trial very relevant to public interest. His arrested was also issued to be gagged for a short time. The result has been outrage and blowback and a rise of the debate about how much ability to silence reporting that the government should be allowed to have.

Agema:

runic knight:
Very little of what you said matters to the topic itself, or the point of complaint.

For someone blathering on about what Twitterati say about Donald Trump, you're the last person who should be accusing anyone else of writing stuff that doesn't matter to the topic.

Very little of your long post was relevant at all to the topic raised, or my complain in particular. I am sorry you failed to understand the point I made in my mention of the hypocrisy I see in those defending the court's actions now after condemning Trump's criticisms of the press's dishonesty, but since part of my argument is a moral one, the hypocrisy mentioned is relevant to the lack of validity in those positions.

You wrote about this merely as "totalitarianism" or akin to mafia silencing, with no awareness whatsoever of the rationale for the law; that's the core accusation I'm levelling. That you're trying to argue against a mere illustrative example rather the core accusation only makes it appear even more likely you had no idea what you were talking about.

No, I am replying to an example made to point out that the actions defended resembles the example also.

Bans on reporting in this case come off less like a "we will report it later" and more like "We will wait til public interest to die off and hope they forget about this"

Sure, conspiracy theorists will believe what they want to believe. However, institutional processes have a lot of other wider concerns to take into account than such mindsets.

I am sure they do. Like the public outcry and blowback in response to that appearance of corrupt behavior, or the concerns of a rise of tension or even violence in an already increasingly volatile situation there.

You know, the problems that tend to arise for politicians when they try to bury their head in the sand and pretend a growing problem doesn't exist because they think they are more important than it.

What their actions look like are very important to anyone in public office that can be removed by public outcry.

Hell, in delaying it, it may even prevent victims coming forward...

Er, it's a court case. That means the police and state have already thoroughly investigated and prepared everything they should need to pursue prosecution - including, naturally, having identified the victims.

And other victims may still not have come forward yet in other cases, or in new cases against the defendant. Which was why I mentioned the specific goal of the #MeToo thing to make people feel they weren't alone and encourage them to come forward.

You wouldn't want victims to feel isolated or like their cases aren't deserving of being pursued, now would you Agema? Or do you think that the police got each and every instance of the crime examined and ready to try and there is nothing left to encourage to come forward? Myself, I don't think the police are all the competent. Especially after that huge scandal involving widespread rape that caused the interest that led to his reporting in the first place.

runic knight:

And other victims may still not have come forward yet in other cases, or in new cases against the defendant. Which was why I mentioned the specific goal of the #MeToo thing to make people feel they weren't alone and encourage them to come forward.

You wouldn't want victims to feel isolated or like their cases aren't deserving of being pursued, now would you Agema? Or do you think that the police got each and every instance of the crime examined and ready to try and there is nothing left to encourage to come forward? Myself, I don't think the police are all the competent. Especially after that huge scandal involving widespread rape that caused the interest that led to his reporting in the first place.

I don't really think you understand how trial law functions. A single trial is supposed to focus specifically on the charges on that ballot; "other cases" are not supposed to influence the decision-making process of the jury in that trial. That would be prejudicing, and threatens a mistrial.

runic knight:
And the decision to make it restricted or not is my point. Either all deserve the protections under the law, or none do. That it is arbitrarily decided is the problem, and justifies any claims of it being politically motivated in the decision.

Right, but is isn't arbitrarily decided, is it? There are procedures which a court follows to determine what restrictions are necessary. In general though, we live in a free and open society where the courts should be as transparent as possible. Do you really want information to be restricted arbitrarily purely for the sake of consistency or ensuring that every trial is exactly the same?

I think you underestimate the robustness of the court process, especially at the level of a crown court.

runic knight:
Him broadcasting about the trial off the courthouse property is entirely acceptable under the law. On the property but still outside the building is not.

Yes.

This is the law. It's a law that exists primarily to protect those using, working in or subject to the justice system. There are signs outside court rooms stating that filming is not allowed, and court staff will tell you to stop filming (as they told Robinson in this case). It wasn't a case of a single step, it was a case of being asked not to film and ignoring the explicit instruction to do so.

If a member of the jury had walked out at that moment, they would have immediately been aware that they were being filmed, that their faces were being captured on camera by someone shrieking into a camera about "Muslim paedophiles". Can you see no possible way that this could compromise their position? And this is discounting the fact that it's a fucking livestream which anyone could be watching..

runic knight:
That this case is decided to be given that sort of protection but another may not is exactly why it justifies claims of it being politically motivated, both in giving one defendant greater protections than another, and in punishing those who breech those arbitrarily provided protections for that defendant more or less harshly than that of another.

But this isn't an unusual level of protection. Noone is allowed to film on court premises. Noone is allowed to lifestream rants about their opinion on a trial in progress on court premises.

I don't care if you like him and agree with his political views. It evidences that you're deeply naive and have terrible judgement, but it's irrelevant. Noone, no matter what their political views, gets to livestream on court premises. Noone gets to ignore court officials telling them to stop because it's literally against the law.

runic knight:
Ask anyone who had to sit in the back of the bus.

Beyond the fact that even making my example has permanently erased any respect I might have had for you as a person, it doesn't even work, because this comparison requires us to assume that noone was allowed to sit at the front of the bus.

runic knight:
The result has been outrage and blowback and a rise of the debate about how much ability to silence reporting that the government should be allowed to have.

It must have been one of those very limited outrages that no one cared about, because more column inches have been devoted to the change of Salad Cream to Sandwich Cream.

runic knight:
Hasn't keeping jurors sequestered from media influence been a common staple of american trials for decades, if not longer? I would think the obvious effectiveness at keeping outside influence at bay by doing that would be pretty obvious by now, especially in a situation where, as you describe, technology makes it harder and harder.

Whilst it is entirely possible that a judge could order a jury sequestered for the duration of the trial, this is not normally done. Most of the time a jury is only sequestered when they are deliberating on their verdict. And ultimately, sequestering a jury for the duration of a trial is simply impractical, especially for a trial that may go on for months or years. Not only are you interrupting and interfering with the jurors other important obligations in life, there's also the costs of accommodation and catering to consider as well.

The standard procedure is that while a trial is running, the jury goes home at the end of the day. When they are called on to deliberate they are sequestered.

Major Tom:
sequestering a jury for the duration of a trial is simply impractical, especially for a trial that may go on for months or years.

Can you name any examples of a jury being impaneled for months on end? Because yes, while trials do go on long, there's many procedural things that are done before a jury is even selected.

CM156:

Major Tom:
sequestering a jury for the duration of a trial is simply impractical, especially for a trial that may go on for months or years.

Can you name any examples of a jury being impaneled for months on end? Because yes, while trials do go on long, there's many procedural things that are done before a jury is even selected.

Here's one from Australia that went on for 10 months, back in 2009, and another from Britain that wrapped in last year after 2 years. That article is less about the trial, and more about being a juror on the same trial for 2 years.

These kinds of trials are more the exception rather than the rule, and tend to be very high profile cases. When I was on jury duty, most trials were expected to run 2-3 days, 4 tops. Even then, the jury wasn't automatically sequestered. I didn't get impaneled this time around, but we always got notifications on who was required to come in for jury selection that day, and it always contained a reminder for people sitting in existing trials to come in for a 9 o'clock start. Though that is for the South Australian court system.

runic knight:
Very little of your long post was relevant at all to the topic raised, or my complain in particular.

No, I'm simply not addressing that particular part of your comment because I literally couldn't care less what you think about the hypocrisy of a handful of Twitterati that nobody else here knows or is interested in. And yet you did still make a lot of comments beyond and not contingent on those Twitterati, as per the first two paragraphs of #41, which I am taking issue with.

And other victims may still not have come forward yet in other cases, or in new cases against the defendant.

And they'll have all the opportunity and encouragement they need outside the few days/weeks that this court case is in process.

The result has been outrage and blowback and a rise of the debate about how much ability to silence reporting that the government should be allowed to have.

The result has been outrage mostly from Americans who don't know anything about the case, the underpinning ethical principles, or British law. Because this is what happens when white nationalist media decides to stick up for an international colleague, and elides all the important, useful detail so they can spin it in a moronically simple fashion designed precisely to whip up outrage. You all fell for it.

WolvDragon:

Samtemdo8:

WolvDragon:

I'll take Sargon seriously when he goes after the right wing for their own bullshit.

He did, once or twice:

Unless the UK Conversitive Pary is a different kind of Right Wing than the Right Wing you are espousing?

Well I mean like the Alt-Right and shit. Has he gone after those types of fringe characters? I don't know if the Right Wing of the UK would fall into the Right Wing of American politics, I often seen people compare the Democrats to the UK Conservative party. Well in a way the Dems are a right wing party anyway.

Sargon is attacking the left more than the right because he believes the Left still has more power and influance than the right at the moment. He thinks the left controls the mainstream media and relevent positions of power. And at the moment their ideology has collapsed and corrupted, and I believe he used to be a leftist, but than he felt betrayed by them ever since GamerGate.

I mean when Bernie Sanders said something after Trump's victory Sargon went emotionally nuts like he took it personal, as if Bernie used to be his idol or something.

Just now he released an HOUR long video explaining the ideological collapse of the Left (and mind you I stumbled on this in a recommended list while watching music soundtracks to movies and games)

Samtemdo8:

WolvDragon:

Samtemdo8:

He did, once or twice:

Unless the UK Conversitive Pary is a different kind of Right Wing than the Right Wing you are espousing?

Well I mean like the Alt-Right and shit. Has he gone after those types of fringe characters? I don't know if the Right Wing of the UK would fall into the Right Wing of American politics, I often seen people compare the Democrats to the UK Conservative party. Well in a way the Dems are a right wing party anyway.

Sargon is attacking the left more than the right because he believes the Left still has more power and influance than the right at the moment. He thinks the left controls the mainstream media and relevent positions of power. And at the moment their ideology has collapsed and corrupted, and I believe he used to be a leftist, but than he felt betrayed by them ever since GamerGate.

I mean when Bernie Sanders said something after Trump's victory Sargon went emotionally nuts like he took it personal, as if Bernie used to be his idol or something.

Just now he released an HOUR long video explaining the ideological collapse of the Left (and mind you I stumbled on this in a recommended list while watching music soundtracks to movies and games)

Then Sargon needs to take a good look on who has more power and control. Sure the mainstream media is left leaning when it comes to social issues, but the right wing has control of the American government and alot of European countries is controlled by center-right countries.

If Sargon feels "betrayed" then was he really ever left leaning? It sounds like he says he's a leftie so that can still have some leftist supporters. The only reason he hasn't gone into attacking the right as often is because most of his funders are right-wing.

Until the day Sargon actually goes after both sides for their stupidity and not just on the left 90 percent of the time, I will not take him so seriously.

Good video on the subject to watch.

Especially the part where the judge is looking out the window and laughing as Robinson is arrested, which apparently makes him a witness and ineligible to be Robinson's sentencing judge.

Also funnily enough there was another reporter there that got off without so much as a second glance.

Major Tom:

CM156:

Major Tom:
sequestering a jury for the duration of a trial is simply impractical, especially for a trial that may go on for months or years.

Can you name any examples of a jury being impaneled for months on end? Because yes, while trials do go on long, there's many procedural things that are done before a jury is even selected.

Here's one from Australia that went on for 10 months, back in 2009, and another from Britain that wrapped in last year after 2 years. That article is less about the trial, and more about being a juror on the same trial for 2 years.

These kinds of trials are more the exception rather than the rule, and tend to be very high profile cases. When I was on jury duty, most trials were expected to run 2-3 days, 4 tops. Even then, the jury wasn't automatically sequestered. I didn't get impaneled this time around, but we always got notifications on who was required to come in for jury selection that day, and it always contained a reminder for people sitting in existing trials to come in for a 9 o'clock start. Though that is for the South Australian court system.

Interesting. I've reviewed my jurisdiction and I can find no recent trials going on nearly that long. A relative of mine was on a jury for a rather complicated murder case a decade or so ago and even then they were only impaneled for two weeks or so.
Thanks for the reading.

WolvDragon:
If Sargon feels "betrayed" then was he really ever left leaning?

Yes, unmistakable, unequivocally yes. He is a liberal, and 100% of liberals, without exception, everywhere in the West, the UK included, have been betrayed by the left wing establishment. It is the reason why liberals who actually uphold liberal values hate "progressives", it may be left leaning, but it's antithetical to liberalism at its core. It's like asking if libertarians feel betrayed by the right wing establishment for turning neo-con, it's a truism.

Whitbane:

Also funnily enough there was another reporter there that got off without so much as a second glance.

And he practically called the rapists disgusting pedophiles, while Tommy was just reporting the objective facts that the BBC had already reported on the trial. This does give independent news a new avenue though, hire Sikhs to report on these things. They once again show themselves to be the best immigrants a society could ask for.

Zontar:

WolvDragon:
If Sargon feels "betrayed" then was he really ever left leaning?

Yes, unmistakable, unequivocally yes. He is a liberal, and 100% of liberals, without exception, everywhere in the West, the UK included, have been betrayed by the left wing establishment. It is the reason why liberals who actually uphold liberal values hate "progressives", it may be left leaning, but it's antithetical to liberalism at its core. It's like asking if libertarians feel betrayed by the right wing establishment for turning neo-con, it's a truism.

Whitbane:

Also funnily enough there was another reporter there that got off without so much as a second glance.

And he practically called the rapists disgusting pedophiles, while Tommy was just reporting the objective facts that the BBC had already reported on the trial. This does give independent news a new avenue though, hire Sikhs to report on these things. They once again show themselves to be the best immigrants a society could ask for.

Enlighten me then, what does Sargon believe in that makes him a liberal?

Whitbane:
Good video on the subject to watch.

Completely biased video by some random person of no particular note that - purely coincidentally - just happens to fit your point of view. Just so we establish what your basis of "good" is.

Especially the part where the judge is looking out the window and laughing as Robinson is arrested, which apparently makes him a witness and ineligible to be Robinson's sentencing judge.

A random vlogger said so - it must be true!

lol.

Also funnily enough there was another reporter there that got off without so much as a second glance.

You may record yourself and goings on in a public street, even outside court buildings where sensitive trials are occurring. The crime is making it publicly accessible. Was he livestreaming it, like Tommy Robinson, and if so did the police know?

WolvDragon:
Enlighten me then, what does Sargon believe in that makes him a liberal?

What Sargon and Zontar believe liberalism is, is an exclusive subset of liberal thought that represents stuff they believe but conveniently disregards anything they don't like. In other words, neither of them are useful or reliable information sources on what liberalism is, nor are they even interested in being useful or reliable sources.

But that's all very Web 2.0: people are tired of listening to experts. What they want is the world according to layman vlogger blowhards that only tell them what they want to believe.

Agema:

What Sargon and Zontar believe liberalism is, is an exclusive subset of liberal thought that represents stuff they believe but conveniently disregards anything they don't like. In other words, neither of them are useful or reliable information sources on what liberalism is, nor are they even interested in being useful or reliable sources.

But that's all very Web 2.0: people are tired of listening to experts. What they want is the world according to layman vlogger blowhards that only tell them what they want to believe.

Which I always found funny, because one ofthe very specific Western philosophers that linked concepts of liberty to moral argumentation was Mill. Who principally made argumentations about the moral hazards of not using your agency to discover the truest opinion as humanly possible as underpinning the evolving, yet most accurate, determinant of moral agency being the human capacity for foresight.

So a moral being might give painkillers to a person suffering pain... a moral being may give thalidomide to treat morning sickness for which is the source of a person's pain ... a moral being being moral can work hard to determine why it was bad giving thalidomide to a person whose morning sickness is the source of said person's pain ... and from then on, a moral being armed with that knowledge can no longer be as moral as possible when they ignore the experts who are armed with the best foresight about the problems of thalidomide for morning sickness.

That's not to say that being smart is a stand in for moral agency, but it does underpin moral agency to use the information you have access to to the best of your abilities and the greatest possible units of happiness generated. The highest moral virtue being those units of happiness being generated irrespective of actual recipient.

So it's not moral to merely tell a select handful of ditching thalidomide for morning sickness even if that handful of friends and family do not suffer ... you should bring your informed critique t the world once you internalize the question of how one can be moral.

... and the liberalism arseholes like Sargon promote is the antithesis of moral agency, by disregarding actual informed opinion and rather myopically merely judging things on what only one person considers self-evident. Which is symptomatic of basically every person I have ever run into that desires to call themselves a 'skeptic' on Youtube.

Being a 'skeptic' involves understanding you personally have an internal bias. You come to grips with it, and you do as much as humanly possible to remove your opinions from the 'validity' of your works in self-testing and examining the world.

Like all the bullshit arguments they come up about 'free speech' can be ripped from half a page of Mill's On Liberty, yet all the stuff that speak against that insulated, myopic, garbage ideas of liberalism are directly challenged by an entire chapter in the same extended essay by Mill.

That informed opinions trump myopic perspectives, and foresight rules moral agency and thus the responsibility of human rights, and the fundamental underpinnings of the nature of constructed human rights.

The true value of freedom of expression is allowing those researchers to tell the world about the dangers of thalidomide for pregnant women. The true value of freedom of expression lay in normalizing and removing the paternalistic aspects of a parent culture from concepts of one's gender identity or sexual preference. It's not screaming hateful vitriol on a street corner to incite fear, self-loathing, violence, and villification for people for no reasons other than their desires for self-authentication.

So people spreading conspiracy theories who should know better (anti-vaxxers, Holocaust deniers, flat earth advocates, etc) are actually directly critiqued in Mill's works. How a society that is moral should be collectively telling them to shut up (you know, actual refutation of the argument) because they're actively undermining the true moral value of their liberty.

And how often do the Zontars, Petersons and Sargons of the world pretend then it's just 'leftist conspiracy types' or 'mainstream media bias' ... when they do things like, I don't know, show scientific consensus on climate change? Or how gender and sexuality is a spectrum with multiple moving parts that deserve recognition? To put it bluntly, the biggest voice for things like freedom of expression, would also probably slap them and tell them they're being fucking idiots or booing them off the stage when, if they followed true to their moral argumentation, they take the world at play as it is now.

Now one can judge the veracity of property rights of opinions. Like does the weight of responsibility require people to be judged by words as if by deeds. Which is a valid argument just how paternalistic a body politic should be.

You can't lump in anti-vaxxers with hate speech mongerers ... one is different, and one is particularly odious in terms of the validity of other people to live, express themselves freely (LGBTQ people, etc), and the right of civilized people (that is to basic security, comfort and market participation--see also, Mill's problematic justification of the British Empire) ...

That being said, there isa far better argument to be made when as a free-willed body politic ... we simply elect not to bombard people with bullshit.

Anti-vaxxers do not deserve an equal platform for their message as people that say; "Vaccines are important..." Because sure as shit we have a whole lot of medical evidence that is hard to comprehend, but of vital importance to public safety.

Agema:

Whitbane:
Good video on the subject to watch.

Completely biased video by some random person of no particular note that - purely coincidentally - just happens to fit your point of view. Just so we establish what your basis of "good" is.

Especially the part where the judge is looking out the window and laughing as Robinson is arrested, which apparently makes him a witness and ineligible to be Robinson's sentencing judge.

A random vlogger said so - it must be true!

lol.

Also funnily enough there was another reporter there that got off without so much as a second glance.

You may record yourself and goings on in a public street, even outside court buildings where sensitive trials are occurring. The crime is making it publicly accessible. Was he livestreaming it, like Tommy Robinson, and if so did the police know?

Doesn't watch the video and then asks questions the video answers.

There's literally a photo of the judge looking out the window and laughing. It's taken from twitter.

The other reporter was some sikh dude out in front with a camera reporting live.

Whitbane:
Doesn't watch the video and then asks questions the video answers.

I did watch the video. Which is rare, because normally YouTube videos are such junk it's not worth the bother. And yes, this is junk too.

Talking obvious and stupid bias, let's take, for instance, that cute little section about the "charity walk" and police persecution. We're supposed to ask why the police would not arrest the guy in the blue shirt, and that he's unfairly treated.

In the first matter, the video actually shows that Robinson's associate commits the first assault by pushing the guy in the blue shirt first. The police then do as the British police often do: try to defuse the issue. They then hand Robinson a great deal of latitude to stop causing trouble get on with his charity walk. He rants and raves at them. They give him instructions to keep the peace, he rants and raves more. Well, tough. Those police officers gave him a lot of time and space to go about his business in an orderly fashion. They dealt with it calmly, responsibly, reasonably stated their case... and removed him when he persisted.

I mean, shit: that sort of criticism coming from the States, too. All those videos where a cop faced with a similar situation just bawls at someone to obey and will have them tazered or tackled in about 15 seconds.

There's literally a photo of the judge looking out the window and laughing. It's taken from twitter.

So what?

The accusation was that a judge cannot sentence someone for an offence the judge has witnessed. But this is incredibly obviously untrue. A person who disturbs a courtroom can be put in jail for contempt of court by the presiding judge - and yet if someone has disrupted a courtroom, they have necessarily been witnessed by the presiding judge. You don't even need a law degree for that.

The other reporter was some sikh dude out in front with a camera reporting live.

Did you read my comment? Do the police have evidence that reporter is broadcasting?

Silvanus:

I don't really think you understand how trial law functions. A single trial is supposed to focus specifically on the charges on that ballot; "other cases" are not supposed to influence the decision-making process of the jury in that trial. That would be prejudicing, and threatens a mistrial.

Two things.
1. Other trials most certainly do matter, as rulings on them are used to determine how the law was interpreted before and offer direction and incite into how it should currently. That is why a lot of time is spent investigating similar cases when building one's own.
2. That all is is irrelevant to the point made calling into question the lack of consistency in those who supported things like the #MeToo stuff while opposing an action that would publicize a trial against an attack as a way to demonstrate that victims can get justice, and therefore increase the chance that other victims would come forward with the same intention as the #MeToo thing.

evilthecat:

Right, but is isn't arbitrarily decided, is it? There are procedures which a court follows to determine what restrictions are necessary. In general though, we live in a free and open society where the courts should be as transparent as possible. Do you really want information to be restricted arbitrarily purely for the sake of consistency or ensuring that every trial is exactly the same?

I think you underestimate the robustness of the court process, especially at the level of a crown court.

I would say it comes off as arbitrarily applied silencing of reporting on it. As was the short-lived silencing on the report of his arrest itself.

I simply want the law to apply equally, so either everyone gets those protections because those protections supersede the public's right to know, or they do not supersede it. Personally I am of the camp that they should not, but I would at least take consistency under the law over potential abuse and favoritism.

runic knight:
Him broadcasting about the trial off the courthouse property is entirely acceptable under the law. On the property but still outside the building is not.

Yes.

This is the law. It's a law that exists primarily to protect those using, working in or subject to the justice system. There are signs outside court rooms stating that filming is not allowed, and court staff will tell you to stop filming (as they told Robinson in this case). It wasn't a case of a single step, it was a case of being asked not to film and ignoring the explicit instruction to do so.

If a member of the jury had walked out at that moment, they would have immediately been aware that they were being filmed, that their faces were being captured on camera by someone shrieking into a camera about "Muslim paedophiles". Can you see no possible way that this could compromise their position? And this is discounting the fact that it's a fucking livestream which anyone could be watching..

How does the problem functionally change between the difference of a single step? If he was a step further way and technically off the property, still doing the exact same thing, the law would allow it, yet the problem you conjured up of a juror walking out would still exist. That tells me the uselessness of the law's current form right there. It also tells me the the application of it is less about the original intent of protecting the trial itself and more about being vindictive.

But this isn't an unusual level of protection. Noone is allowed to film on court premises. Noone is allowed to lifestream rants about their opinion on a trial in progress on court premises.

I don't care if you like him and agree with his political views. It evidences that you're deeply naive and have terrible judgement, but it's irrelevant. Noone, no matter what their political views, gets to livestream on court premises. Noone gets to ignore court officials telling them to stop because it's literally against the law.

So I take it you believe it is normal that when someone is arrested like he was, no one is allowed to report on it? I may not be all that familiar with things, but that doesn't sound entirely right and usual to me.

As for his political views, I don't actually know them. Well, I can guess now, especially based on who came out to justify things, but as for him, personally? I never looked into his views and see no reason to now as they do not matter. Your assumptions about me and my motivations though, well, rather telling of your own biases and presumptions, but still as worthless as they ever were.

runic knight:
Ask anyone who had to sit in the back of the bus.

You mistake justifying enforcement of legality with my actual complaints about the morality and functional usefulness of the decision.

Beyond the fact that even making my example has permanently erased any respect I might have had for you as a person, it doesn't even work, because this comparison requires us to assume that noone was allowed to sit at the front of the bus.

You now have "no respect" for me because you misunderstood the argument made, cut it short to make sure it was presented in a way to justify your misrepresentation of it, and then got outraged over your own misunderstanding before even seeking clarification. Yeah, ok. I think it is time I remind, well, everyone around here, about something.

First though, do note though that I am not using "respect" to mean "civility and human decency" as I view that is a default provided to all, but rather I am referring to actual "deference and high regard" when I say respect in the following manner.

I do not respect you. Any of you.

You are all as respected as much as any random youtube video commenter as the default.

In order for me to be affected by yours or anyone else's lack of respect, it would require I respect you to begin with so that your lack of it would matter at all to me. And I am sorry random internet forum goer #278, but I do not respect you enough that the lack of, or loss of, your own means anything. That applies to nearly every voice on this forum too, not just you, as very few on here have done anything to earn my respect. That is part of why I concentrate on arguments and not who someone is, what gender they are, what sexuality they are, or whatever identifying traits they want to put forward.

Because Evil, of course you don't respect me. I don't agree with you, I am a random nobody on the internet, and I regularly argue with you and your friends. I am seen as antagonistic, assumed(when not accused) of being of a political lean and ideology I am not, and have argued with a lot of people on these forums. So I am well aware you would never view me with any difference or high regard. And that is fine. As what does that matter or effect anything in the discussion had though when they are still at least civil or reliant on reasoning and sound argument? To me, nothing at all. Don't respect me at all, probably the wisest position to take. Just stop assuming it means anything to anyone in the first place.

Now, even beyond all that though, your previous remarks show me that you already held no respect for me based entirely on your own biases and assumptions, so the "loss" of it here over a quip you misrepresented the intention of would be about as compelling to me as saelune calling people who disagree with them nazi. That is to say, not compelling at all.

Your opinion of me means nothing as not only do I have zero deference or regard for you from the beginning, but you have also shown yourself a terribly unreliable judge.

So to you, and anyone else out there, please spare me the public displays of condemnation and "I lost respect" sermonizing. None of you had any deference or regard for me in the first place, and far too many have had no civility or human decency toward me either.

---------

Now, as for my point in the quip though, you cut it off and ignored the purpose in your rush to posture on being outraged I made it in the first place.

My point was in response to questioning when it was acceptable to arrest someone, and my quip was a direct reference to an obvious and well-known case of civil disobedience. That you missed the obvious there in your pursuit of moral high ground shows how worthless your "respect" of me would be. As I finished it last time though, I'll say it again and maybe you can see the intention of the reply there.

"You mistake justifying enforcement of legality with my actual complaints about the morality and functional usefulness of the decision."

So, to answer again the question raised of "when is it ok to arrest someone for breaking the law?"

That was never the point of my complaint so asking it is like asking when it is ok to arrest anyone practicing civil disobedience. When is it ok to arrest someone for not sitting in the back of the bus? When is it ok to arrest protestors?

It was a nonsensical question that implied my problem was with the fact the law was being enforced and not with the morality of the law itself or the pointlessness of it to serve its purpose.

Baffle2:

runic knight:
The result has been outrage and blowback and a rise of the debate about how much ability to silence reporting that the government should be allowed to have.

It must have been one of those very limited outrages that no one cared about, because more column inches have been devoted to the change of Salad Cream to Sandwich Cream.

You measure public outrage by how many columns people in the media write... Well, that just says everything I need to know about why you are having such problems right there.

You are aware that the media was actively prevented from reporting on the arrest at first, yes? Even before anything else, that was sort of the driving complaint a lot of people had and what pulled them into this, the silencing tactic.

If you are looking for articles on it, I have to wonder first about how well you even understand what people's complaints actually are, and second if you are even trying as a google search showed a lot of them now that reporting on the arrest is no longer prevented. Hell, there was enough people to block off roads with protests and get people arrested, so obviously there is a bigger backlash by actual people than sandwich cream.

But hey, here you go, an article from a millisecond google search talking about protestors from a source you may even trust.

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2018/jun/09/tommy-robinson-supporters-arrested-after-clash-with-police

Major Tom:
Whilst it is entirely possible that a judge could order a jury sequestered for the duration of the trial, this is not normally done. Most of the time a jury is only sequestered when they are deliberating on their verdict. And ultimately, sequestering a jury for the duration of a trial is simply impractical, especially for a trial that may go on for months or years. Not only are you interrupting and interfering with the jurors other important obligations in life, there's also the costs of accommodation and catering to consider as well.

The standard procedure is that while a trial is running, the jury goes home at the end of the day. When they are called on to deliberate they are sequestered.

Which is the larger impracticality?
1. A handful of jurors being inconvenienced (as they often already are with lost work anyways) by being sequestered.
2. The entirety of the media being unable to report on a trial that may hold great importance to the public's interest in a world where telecommunications has made it actively impossible to achieve and which now even international publications will write about it and publish it in the nation where it is illegal to report on it.

And that is before taking into account how currently the ban on reporting is only selectively applied, meaning sequestering could also only be selectively applied in those same situations and not effectively silence the entire population's ability to report on a case of public interest.

This is why I criticize the pointlessness of the current method.

Agema:

runic knight:
Very little of your long post was relevant at all to the topic raised, or my complain in particular.

No, I'm simply not addressing that particular part of your comment because I literally couldn't care less what you think about the hypocrisy of a handful of Twitterati that nobody else here knows or is interested in. And yet you did still make a lot of comments beyond and not contingent on those Twitterati, as per the first two paragraphs of #41, which I am taking issue with.

So your justification for not talking about my complaints in a reply to me, was because you didn't like my complaints.

So why should I care about your reply?

As I said, it was largely irrelevant.

And other victims may still not have come forward yet in other cases, or in new cases against the defendant.

And they'll have all the opportunity and encouragement they need outside the few days/weeks that this court case is in process.

Because we all know delaying on reporting to the police on a crime occurring never has any negative consequences when it comes to prosecuting them whatsoever...

The result has been outrage and blowback and a rise of the debate about how much ability to silence reporting that the government should be allowed to have.

The result has been outrage mostly from Americans who don't know anything about the case, the underpinning ethical principles, or British law. Because this is what happens when white nationalist media decides to stick up for an international colleague, and elides all the important, useful detail so they can spin it in a moronically simple fashion designed precisely to whip up outrage. You all fell for it.

I find it funny as hell that you accuse this of being some white nationalist media agenda thing. Not that it likely isn't tied it, I am sure it is. But rather, the sheer blind conviction that people are upset solely because of white nationalism and nothing else, and in doing so echoing the media trying to downplay it by associating it with white supremacy and the like.

I especially liked this bit.
"stick up for an international colleague, and elides all the important, useful detail so they can spin it in a moronically simple fashion designed precisely to whip up outrage."

I have no more words but my laughter echoes far and wide.

runic knight:

Even before anything else, that was sort of the driving complaint a lot of people had and what pulled them into this, the silencing tactic.

Ha ha, if you believe that I'm pretty sure someone has a bridge to sell you. Look at the photos of the protestors. Are they freedom of speech advocates, or are they just fans of Tommy Robinson and support his views? Remarkable amount of Union Jacks and England flags for a free speech rally...

runic knight:
So your justification for not talking about my complaints in a reply to me, was because you didn't like my complaints.

You claimed one thing that I disagreed with. You claimed a second thing that I didn't care about - but there is no need or obligation for me to address it, and it makes no difference to the validity of the first point that I did address.

But despite all this quibbling it's still clear you commented from a position of considerable ignorance, much as you're loath to admit it.

Because we all know delaying on reporting to the police on a crime occurring never has any negative consequences when it comes to prosecuting them whatsoever...

You're fundamentally not getting this. The reporting block is only on the duration of the trial until the verdict. Times vary considerably obviously, but to give you an idea, the average time (in Crown Court) from offence to a trial starting is over 5 months, then block may be placed and the verdict is under 2 weeks. Then the reporting block is lifted. It is not credible that such a short period months or years after an offence is going to make it significantly harder to prosecute a previously unreported crime.

I find it funny as hell that you accuse this of being some white nationalist media agenda thing.

Reporting gags in British court cases occur occasionally. So what makes Tommy Robinson so important to pick up on compared to the others? Why covered so particularly by further-right-leaning media outlets (that also omitted Robinson's chequered past and key details of his offence)? It could hardly more obviously be about ideological sympathies with Tommy Robinson.

They're not the only people piping up, but without them pushing it, free speech advocates wouldn't even have noticed - like they generally don't notice all the other reporting gags that occur.

runic knight:
I would say it comes off as arbitrarily applied silencing of reporting on it. As was the short-lived silencing on the report of his arrest itself.

To be honest, I find it difficult to see why this is confusing.

In the UK, we have a general legal principle that a person should be tried by the courts instead of the media. It's a principle our justice system takes very seriously. Trying to use media to manipulate the justice system is a crime, and yes, this includes trying to film court proceedings while screaming about how the defendants (who have not been convicted) are guilty. That isn't acceptable.

If you do that, then the court's primary concern is going to be limiting the damage you have done to the integrity of the trial. This is so important, that it could involve postponing the trial itself.

So, have a think for a second. Can you think of a possible reason why the court might not want to broadcast to the general public that someone was arrested for breaching the reporting restrictions on a trial in process by posting a livestream to the internet in which they assume the guilt of the defendants before the trial they attempted to disrupt has concluded?

runic knight:
How does the problem functionally change between the difference of a single step?

You seem to be confused by the concept of law itself, at this point. In many crimes, the difference between acceptable and unacceptable behaviour is a matter of relatively small degrees, but the line exists because it has to exist somewhere.

But ultimately, if you're attempting to disrupt or prejudice a trial it doesn't matter if you're doing so from the other side of the country, that is still against the law. However, we do live in a free and open society where justice is required to be transparent to the maximum extent possible. This means legitimate journalists need to be able to film and do their jobs in such a way that does not impede the functioning of the court. Part of that is adhering to spatial boundaries and remaining a certain distance away from the trial itself so as not to physically intrude, part of it is not reporting that defendants are guilty or whipping up hatred against them before they have been convicted.

runic knight:
So I take it you believe it is normal that when someone is arrested like he was, no one is allowed to report on it? I may not be all that familiar with things, but that doesn't sound entirely right and usual to me.

Then listen to people who are familiar with it, like that legal blogger I posted earlier.

runic knight:
Don't respect me at all, probably the wisest position to take. Just stop assuming it means anything to anyone in the first place.

So, I don't want to make this about personal drama so I'm going to cut it down to the bare minimum.

I am quite aware of what you meant by your comparison. I can see that you misunderstood my argument as an appeal to the authority of existing legislation. However, it doesn't change the fact that you compared not being allowed to film outside a court (which noone can do) to the experience black people faced under segregation, under actual discriminatory laws. The fact that you clearly see this as a case of discrimination does not exactly help the lingering suspicion that this comparison may have been intended, but whether it was intended or not, it was incredibly stupid.

Rather than elaborating on my definition of respect, I'm simply going to point out that you've read a huge ammount into what was ultimately a rhetorical device to signal that your argument came across as being bad faith and insulting to an experience of persecution which is frighteningly real and quite recent. But I will add that I fundamentally reject this notion that the internet requires antisociality as a virtue. That's just weak. You can disagree with people on the internet and still recognize that they are worthy of a certain respect even if their politics are not, that they ultimately have good intentions and can potentially use those intentions learn and grow.

Of course, once a person shows they aren't well-intentioned, then things get a bit messier. I wouldn't read too much into it though.

Baffle2:

runic knight:

Even before anything else, that was sort of the driving complaint a lot of people had and what pulled them into this, the silencing tactic.

Ha ha, if you believe that I'm pretty sure someone has a bridge to sell you. Look at the photos of the protestors. Are they freedom of speech advocates, or are they just fans of Tommy Robinson and support his views? Remarkable amount of Union Jacks and England flags for a free speech rally...

That is your argument?

People flying flags of England...in England.
Oh, I see. Couldn't possibly be pride in one's nation, or a view about how such censorious behavior is very anti-British. Must be the boogieman of the day.

Agema:

runic knight:
So your justification for not talking about my complaints in a reply to me, was because you didn't like my complaints.

You claimed one thing that I disagreed with. You claimed a second thing that I didn't care about - but there is no need or obligation for me to address it, and it makes no difference to the validity of the first point that I did address.

But despite all this quibbling it's still clear you commented from a position of considerable ignorance, much as you're loath to admit it.

So despite the two points being related, you picked the one you thought you might be able to address, by posting a lot of nonsense that was irrelevant, and under the justification that you simply didn't care about the rest I said, while still getting upset when I in turn called it irrelevant?

Ok then.

Because we all know delaying on reporting to the police on a crime occurring never has any negative consequences when it comes to prosecuting them whatsoever...

You're fundamentally not getting this. The reporting block is only on the duration of the trial until the verdict. Times vary considerably obviously, but to give you an idea, the average time (in Crown Court) from offence to a trial starting is over 5 months, then block may be placed and the verdict is under 2 weeks. Then the reporting block is lifted. It is not credible that such a short period months or years after an offence is going to make it significantly harder to prosecute a previously unreported crime.

Since you missed the point, I'll drop the sarcasm and spell it out for you directly.

Withholding reporting on a crime would thus withhold the #MeToo effect of encouraging people to come forward.
Delays in reporting a crime make it harder to prosecute, find clues, otherwise solve.
Supporting the withholding of reporting on a crime would thus run counter to the intention of the #MeToo thing.

Logical consistency would expect those who supported women coming forward would want them to do so as soon as possible.

I find it funny as hell that you accuse this of being some white nationalist media agenda thing.

Reporting gags in British court cases occur occasionally. So what makes Tommy Robinson so important to pick up on compared to the others? Why covered so particularly by further-right-leaning media outlets (that also omitted Robinson's chequered past and key details of his offence)? It could hardly more obviously be about ideological sympathies with Tommy Robinson.

I linked to the guardian who's coverage of the protests, and of him, are nothing but linking him to the EDL.

They're not the only people piping up, but without them pushing it, free speech advocates wouldn't even have noticed - like they generally don't notice all the other reporting gags that occur.

So your point here is that if people you don't like make a fuss about an issue that free speech people responded to based on their own principles and views, then it should not be accepted that those people have their own principles and views?

Because, it looks very much like you are trying to guilt by association all who protest this based entirely on it being publicized in spite of the attempts to censor it by people you dislike. And it is exactly that reason that I laugh at you calling it a white nationalist thing as you admit that other people responded to it when made aware of it, as if the very act of them being made aware of it was some great tainting evil, and while the words you use to describe it, that of "stick up for an international colleague, and elides all the important, useful detail so they can spin it in a moronically simple fashion designed precisely to whip up outrage." was the very complaint of so many during other controversies, only against the progressive media.

The lack of self awareness is funny as hell. Of course whoever reports on a story nowadays is going to spin it. Hell, the very problem with that was part of why a great gaming controversy happened back in the tail end of 2014 after all. But you are trying to use how the initial story itself got out as justification for demonizing and dismissing anyone who came to support it. Hell, even GG at least had integrity enough to commend stories by outlets they disliked if they were done well. This is like watching the strawman view of what anti-GG demonized and mischaracterized GG as, done completely straight, and applied toward the the far right.

But I am getting off topic here in my humor.

Your argument is that this case is treated as special and viewed because this one kicked up more dust. To which I say, yes, it did and that is why it got more attention, you are absolutely right on that account. Problem is though, that is irrelevant that it was this case and not another that got the attention, when the issues raised are still seen as worthwhile by defenders of free speech.

All your argument here tells me is that you care more about which side "wins" and that you would rather it fail solely because it is not your "side" than anything else.

evilthecat:

runic knight:
I would say it comes off as arbitrarily applied silencing of reporting on it. As was the short-lived silencing on the report of his arrest itself.

To be honest, I find it difficult to see why this is confusing.

In the UK, we have a general legal principle that a person should be tried by the courts instead of the media. It's a principle our justice system takes very seriously. Trying to use media to manipulate the justice system is a crime, and yes, this includes trying to film court proceedings while screaming about how the defendants (who have not been convicted) are guilty. That isn't acceptable.

If you do that, then the court's primary concern is going to be limiting the damage you have done to the integrity of the trial. This is so important, that it could involve postponing the trial itself.

So, have a think for a second. Can you think of a possible reason why the court might not want to broadcast to the general public that someone was arrested for breaching the reporting restrictions on a trial in process by posting a livestream to the internet in which they assume the guilt of the defendants before the trial they attempted to disrupt has concluded?

A principle that is often disregarded and selective applied is not really a principle, so much as it is a tool to be used at a whim. Sort of why most of my posts have complained about the very nature of the ability to make the ruling an the problem with a lack of consistency there.

As for why they would gag the reporting on the arrest, in order to try to hide that they did it and avoid public outrage by limiting the amount of people made aware of the arrest as there is certainly no value in trying to protect the accused when they readily repeat the infraction and live broadcast it. All that is left is to cover up the occurrence to prevent those unhappy with the decision from being aware of it. And that is itself part of why people have ran with this case as an issue of free speech and the like, that of the law trying to intentionally have the people left in the dark so as to avoid addressing the public response to the enaction law itself.

runic knight:
How does the problem functionally change between the difference of a single step?

You seem to be confused by the concept of law itself, at this point. In many crimes, the difference between acceptable and unacceptable behaviour is a matter of relatively small degrees, but the line exists because it has to exist somewhere.

But ultimately, if you're attempting to disrupt or prejudice a trial it doesn't matter if you're doing so from the other side of the country, that is still against the law. However, we do live in a free and open society where justice is required to be transparent to the maximum extent possible. This means legitimate journalists need to be able to film and do their jobs in such a way that does not impede the functioning of the court. Part of that is adhering to spatial boundaries and remaining a certain distance away from the trial itself so as not to physically intrude, part of it is not reporting that defendants are guilty or whipping up hatred against them before they have been convicted.

I am obviously not confused about the concept if I am pointing it out as an example myself. You, however, seem to have missed the point of that example used.

It was to highlight the lack of practical value in accomplishing the purpose of the law in the first place. The law as it currently exists is inherently flawed and borderline pointless in accomplishing its intention with regard to the degree of it being broken by that is used to justify his arrest.

runic knight:
So I take it you believe it is normal that when someone is arrested like he was, no one is allowed to report on it? I may not be all that familiar with things, but that doesn't sound entirely right and usual to me.

Then listen to people who are familiar with it, like that legal blogger I posted earlier.

So would that be a claim on your part then that it IS normal that when someone is arrested that no one is allowed to report on it?

runic knight:
Don't respect me at all, probably the wisest position to take. Just stop assuming it means anything to anyone in the first place.

I am quite aware of what you meant by your comparison.

Your reply shows otherwise, as you never addressed what I meant.

I can see that you misunderstood my argument as an appeal to the authority of existing legislation. However, it doesn't change the fact that you compared not being allowed to film outside a court (which noone can do) to the experience black people faced under segregation, under actual discriminatory laws. The fact that you clearly see this as a case of discrimination does not exactly help the lingering suspicion that this comparison may have been intended, but whether it was intended or not, it was incredibly stupid.

Wrong.

My point was with regard to the question about when it was ok to arrest someone. It was a poorly done question irrelevant to my point or discussion itself thus far, and carried with it an implication about my position being one of rejecting the enforcement of a law as a concept based on my personal feelings. It deserved nothing less than derision for being so. It got a question in reply, equally poorly worded, to highlight the problem with it.

You in turn see that as an argument of some sort of equivalence between the two, and even after being corrected on that and it explained the intent was to demonstrate the problem with the question itself, you still push YOUR presumption. Hell, you also presume I see that as an appeal to authority based off of I do not even know what, and trust me, if I saw that fallacy in play, I would probably call it out and clearly explain how and why it was one. You would rather believe your own lie derived from your assumptions than accept when someone outright tells you that you are wrong about their own words.

Rather than elaborating on my definition of respect, I'm simply going to point out that you've read a huge ammount into what was ultimately a rhetorical device to signal that your argument came across as being bad faith and insulting to an experience of persecution which is frighteningly real and quite recent. But I will add that I fundamentally reject this notion that the internet requires antisociality as a virtue. That's just weak. You can disagree with people on the internet and still recognize that they are worthy of a certain respect even if their politics are not, that they ultimately have good intentions and can potentially use those intentions learn and grow.

Of course, once a person shows they aren't well-intentioned, then things get a bit messier. I wouldn't read too much into it though.

Considering I made certain to designate between "respect" in the sense of civility, and "respect" in the sense of regard and deference, your position here seems to be either disregarding that entirely, or saying that all people deserve to be given deference and high regard, a stance that just seems nonsensical. And considering I openly implied that few had earned my respect in spite of my lack of providing it in default, I will just largely dismiss your words here, especially the implication carried when you say "worthy of a certain respect" as though I am entirely devoid of providing it. It is earned, not given, but that is what makes it actually worth something and what differentiates it from basic civility. I made certain to clarify the difference between respecting someone and just treating them like a human being. You either missed that or ignored it when you wrote this reply.

Furthermore, considering you openly reject me explaining my position and intent of my own words to push your own assumptions, I find it funny you try to claim the question was suppose to highlight my arguing in bad faith despite the worthlessness to my actual point or argument that the question itself had, and in spite of your own disregarding of the restated intention and point I clarified in order to keep pushing your own assumption.

It is not anti-social to not defer to people or regard them highly, nor is it impossible to do that but still provide basic civility and human decency. It has nothing at all to do with not assuming they have good intentions, or lack the ability to grow. It is, instead, about being aware that people on the internet are equal to you and that no one is inherently deserving of deference or regard without earning it through their own actions.

You mention arguing in bad faith, but your entire reply here suggests you didn't even actually bother to read what I said. You just assumed the worst of me again.

runic knight:

Two things.
1. Other trials most certainly do matter, as rulings on them are used to determine how the law was interpreted before and offer direction and incite into how it should currently. That is why a lot of time is spent investigating similar cases when building one's own.

Referring to precedents set in past trials, yes. You, on the other hand, referred to other ongoing trials, not past. That's not referring to precedent, and would be ruinous to the trial process, easily resulting in mistrial if it affected the decision-making process in a major way.

Again, this is really fundamental stuff for the UK trial process.

runic knight:

2. That all is is irrelevant to the point made calling into question the lack of consistency in those who supported things like the #MeToo stuff while opposing an action that would publicize a trial against an attack as a way to demonstrate that victims can get justice, and therefore increase the chance that other victims would come forward with the same intention as the #MeToo thing.

There's no lack of consistency there. Support for #MeToo does not somehow indicate that the same person should also be alright with prejudicing a trial.

Wait until the trial is over.

runic knight:

That is your argument?

People flying flags of England...in England.
Oh, I see. Couldn't possibly be pride in one's nation, or a view about how such censorious behavior is very anti-British.

Ha ha ha! Listen and believe must be your new thing.

I've actually seen far right marches in the UK, I know what they look like. Funnily enough, it's exactly the same as these supposed free-speech marches.

runic knight:
Oh, I see. Couldn't possibly be pride in one's nation, or a view about how such censorious behavior is very anti-British. Must be the boogieman of the day.

So, Baffle is correct here.

The flags of the UK do not have associated principles or ideals. The St. George's cross is primarily the flag used by the England football team. The Union Flag is associated with the armed forces and the royal family. These flags are not statements of political intent for anyone except the far right.

The protests have been specifically organised by far right groups, such as the Football Lads Alliance and the For Britain Movemnent. They have been violent, with attacks on police and people being arrested for carrying weapons, which is another hallmark of far right protest. News footage shows several protestors performing Nazi salutes.

But whatever, keep fighting that leftist cuckspiracy.

runic knight:
A principle that is often disregarded and selective applied is not really a principle, so much as it is a tool to be used at a whim. Sort of why most of my posts have complained about the very nature of the ability to make the ruling an the problem with a lack of consistency there.

You have offered absolutely no evidence that it is applied inconsistently though.

Like, you seem confused as to why people think you might be far right, or might have some personal sympathies with violent extremist Tommy Robinson, and it's because you seem to be convinced that some kind of conspiracy or persecution is going on here when you have offered no evidence. The fact that judges are allowed to.. you know.. judge a case does not mean political bias, if anything that indicates a basic misunderstanding of law as a kind of choose your own adventure book where the job of the actual humans involved is just to go from page to page, and that's a terrible idea. The reason legal professionals have power to interpret the law is really obvious, it's because every situation is unique and everyone should be judged fairly, with references to all circumstances surrounding their case.

A trial is made up of competing interests. If Tommy Robinson had been treated unfairly or in a way which was out of line with the law, then his defence counsellor should have used their power over the process to intervene. They didn't, because nothing unusual happened. There are checks and balances within the justice system to prevent individual overreach and abuse, but the idea of a legal system with no human element or capacity for individual judgement is insane. That is asking for a legal system which is going to be profoundly unfair and arbitrary, which will not have the ability to appreciate context and which will be blind to the spirit of the principles laws are intended to uphold.

runic knight:
It was to highlight the lack of practical value in accomplishing the purpose of the law in the first place. The law as it currently exists is inherently flawed and borderline pointless in accomplishing its intention with regard to the degree of it being broken by that is used to justify his arrest.

Sure, but that's just speculation, isn't it?

Noone else seems to have a problem understanding the difference between having a camera literally meters from where a trial is taking place or shoving it right in people's noses as they enter or leave court, and the hypothetical risk that someone might film from far away with a zoom lens and not be arrested for contempt of court (although they still could be). Like, do you have any actual basis for saying that distinction doesn't matter? Where's your evidence?

runic knight:
So would that be a claim on your part then that it IS normal that when someone is arrested that no one is allowed to report on it?

Yes, it's entirely normal when the arrested is related to a trial in progress, because that trial is still ongoing and the person involved in that trial deserves a fair judgement independent of secondary cases surrounding the trial itself. Like, I do not understand why that is so confusing, isn't that something you would want if you were arrested?

runic knight:
My point was with regard to the question about when it was ok to arrest someone. It was a poorly done question irrelevant to my point or discussion itself thus far, and carried with it an implication about my position being one of rejecting the enforcement of a law as a concept based on my personal feelings.

Okay, so you misunderstood the question. It had no "implication" of your position being one of rejecting the enforcement of the law as a concept, which should have been obvious because we are talking about someone who attempted to prejudice a trial in favour of the guilt of the accused. Clearly, you don't have a problem with someone being arrested and charged with child sex offences, but for some reason you do have problem with someone being arrested for trying to interfere with their trial. What that suggests to me is not a general disregard for the law, but a specific unwillingness to apply the law when the "wrong kind" of people are affected.

Like, I am accusing you of discrimination. I am questioning the underlying basis of your moral judgements about the law itself and whether they are applied equally, because you seem to be incredibly upset by the fact that the arrest and suspended sentence of a fairly minor public figure was subject to reporting restrictions, while ignoring that those reporting restrictions existed to ensure that another person's trial remains fair and unbiased. More generally, I'm questioning why you think the presumption of innocence is sacred in cases where some men are accused of sexual crimes, and bemoan the chilling effect of "listen and believe culture", while being perfectly fine with someone showing up at a hearing for sexual misconduct and livestreaming on the premises about how the accused is a paedophile, threatening to go to their house and ignoring instructions not to film there.

And it's difficult not to notice what the key differences between these cases are, which makes the comparison slightly grating..

runic knight:
Considering I made certain to designate between "respect" in the sense of civility, and "respect" in the sense of regard and deference, your position here seems to be either disregarding that entirely, or saying that all people deserve to be given deference and high regard, a stance that just seems nonsensical.

..because there is literally nothing between those two arbitrary definitions.

Also, your attempt to manufacture persecution is bad faith. It's normal to make conditional assumptions about the actual things a person has said, which is why I haven't specifically called out all of the assumptions you have made about my intent and position (including quite intimate details of my personal thought, such as who I consider to be "friends") because I understand that happens, I stand by everything I have said even if it's been misunderstood and will attempt to furnish an alternative explanation to any mistaken assumptions which particularly annoy me. As it is, though, I don't feel like you're arguing with me at all, I feel like you're arguing for some hypothetical third person who is supposed to shake their head and feel sorry for how meanly you're being treated.

And that isn't good faith, it's grounded in the assumption that the only reason anyone could disagree with you is because they don't understand you.

runic knight:
So despite the two points being related,

Check back to post #41, you have two general thrusts to your posts; the first characterises the UK as totalitarian, the second complains about hypocritical Twitterati. As you could remove either of those two prongs without harming the point of the other, any relationship is more incidental than it is important.

After that, there's an important difference. In rational debate, I have no obligation to question any or all points another person makes. However, if you would aspire to rational debate then you sure as hell have an obligation to defend (or concede) your own claims.

Mostly, of course, this tack you're taking now seems to just be obfuscation to avoid having to defend your claims. So if you continue with it, I am going to continue in every reply sending it back to the start until you address it, until Gethsemani is inevitably forced to shut the thread down.

Logical consistency would expect those who supported women coming forward would want them to do so as soon as possible.

I'm not disagreeing with the theoretical basis. I'm disagreeing with the practical impact, because what we actually have to do in this world is make principles work in real life situations.

#MeToo was about a persistent, continual "silencing" across the course of many years that suppressed victims (please remember that some of them were men) coming forward over sexual assault. A court gag, however, blocks a very short period of time a substantial period after a crime has been committed or reported to the police, and then ends. Let's imagine a 20 year statute of limitations as a maximum timeframe. If someone is eventually convicted, assuming a trial length of 2 weeks, that leaves over 1000 weeks to report on the crime. Furthermore, in terms of the court case starting months after the crime and the suspects in custody, there will be no significant loss of memory or forensic evidence that hasn't already occurred in the previous 5-6 months (or much more, depending on how long after the offence it was reported to police and the length of the police investigation).

Put it this way: if Alyssa Milano had waited another two weeks before dropping the proverbial bomb on sexual harassment, do you think it would have made the slightest difference to the outcome? Do you think Rose McGowan or Anthony Rapp would would have forgotten experiences in that time? Simply: no.

I linked to the guardian who's coverage of the protests, and of him, are nothing but linking him to the EDL.

Sure... over two weeks after you first took notice of the issue and stuck up for him. There are no plaudits for hindsight, unfortunately.

So your point here is that if people you don't like make a fuss about an issue that free speech people responded to based on their own principles and views, then it should not be accepted that those people have their own principles and views?

That's a straw man.

snip

I'm more critical of many free speech advocates in this case for leaping in without knowing anything like enough about circumstances or the purpose of the law, and coming out with hyperbolic and asinine bullshit like "dictatorial" and "totalitarian". By following the far-right agenda so blindly they've helped advance the far right cause. And, perhaps, for elements of hypocrisy.

Ironically, I don't ultimately think these court gags are best practice, because I'm not convinced evidence supports that they are necessary, that juries are so vulnerable to external influence. However, we should all be able to disagree with something, whilst also recognising that it is reasonable, and so it is I feel in this case. I understand and appreciate that the integrity of justice is an extremely important one. We all know free speech is not absolute, and stops when it conflicts with certain other principles. The integrity of justice is such a principle where free speech can reasonably face (proportionate) limits. The issue is then when is it needed, and what is proportionate. This is (as above) the art of balancing principles in real life scenarios.

I think this is a sensible way of approaching the matter. Not going off half-cocked screaming "TOTALITARIANISM" based on poor information and a certain degree of cultural arrogance.

WolvDragon:

Well I mean like the Alt-Right and shit. Has he gone after those types of fringe characters? I don't know if the Right Wing of the UK would fall into the Right Wing of American politics, I often seen people compare the Democrats to the UK Conservative party. Well in a way the Dems are a right wing party anyway.

-Says he'll take Sargon seriously when he sees videos of him tackling issues with the right.

-Someone links said videos.

-"I meant like... far far right. Like Nazis and shit."

Nice.

As far as the main story goes, it's a miscarriage of justice. Apparently when you're a journalist in the UK disrupting the peace means 'doing your job'. He's probably going to end up the victim of an honor killing in prison, freedom of the press is dead in the UK.

 Pages PREV 1 2 3 4 NEXT

Reply to Thread

This thread is locked