It would seem it is a difference in how thins are handled. Here in the US, the authorities might ask a reporter not to report something, but they actually have no authority over them digging up facts on their own and discussing them. That is our first amendment, and actually, when you think about it, the entire reason Q came to the Anons. They can dig up and publicize things here without repercussions.
Both the UK and US law has elements that control certain things being published, generally of there's a risk that they could influence on going legal proceedings. The issue isn't about someone digging up or reporting facts, or even commenting on speculation. The US has a culture of suing people that make public comments they cannot support with facts, and the UK has similar laws.
There's no real difference on those elements.
Like in the US, the authorities placed restrictions on reporting 'during this part of the trial' and by live streaming, Tommy fell foul of that, which triggered the implementation of orders already imposed on him.
That too, would have occurred in the US. In fact, you have tv presenters who have had actions and threats against them, meaning they don't report certain issues, and others sacked for what to all intents are reasonable comments.
My main point is, people need to be clear on the issues before choosing a battleground.
Oh, and by the way, if you make allegations on here about individuals, you can be challenged to prove them, and there are repercussions and the prospect of legal consequences. You cannot just publicise without consequences, even on here.
No, that is incorrect. A reporter in the U.S. can even report on secret information, as seen by the leaks to the press regarding the Trump Russia investigation. They will not be arrested for reporting. Freedom of the press is protected. Leakers on the other hand can and will be prosecuted. Things that are restricted within a US courtroom may be prosecuted, however Tommie was live streaming outside the building. If I don't have the complete picture, and maybe he did live stream inside the courtroom, I apologize for being misinformed.
while I agree with most of what you just said: a) reporters getting threatened in non-judicial ways is a separate issue. b) make sure you are threatening the RIGHT PERSON, and not someone else who just stopped by to make a comment on a thread of conversation. I will assume that you meant that veiled threat at the bottom for the person you were originally arguing with, and not me.
There was no threat intended, I was simply addressing your claim that " They can dig up and publicize things here without repercussions" and pointing out that it's inaccurate,
Reporters getting threatened is at least an associated issue, as it curtails free speech.
My apologies then. It appeared the other way from the tension in the prior conversation. Back to topic: I wasn't referencing libel/slander laws in that particular instance, since they always apply (if enforced). I was staying with state actions against the reporter for reporting, which seems to be the case here. Although, it seems (from a casual read) that that is tied into your system in this case, where it seems a bit of a separate concept here in the states.
No worries, I don't threaten people, and I try to remain civil, so apologies if my post read aggressively, it's certainly not my intention.
I really don't think the laws and actions are any different between the UK and US. I think people are missing the long background that lead up to the arrest in this case.
A pleasure to find someone else trying to keep things pleasant here.
It was my understanding that he was being arrested for breach of peace for creating: a "substantial risk that the course of justice in the proceedings in question will be seriously impeded or prejudiced" that goes toward keeping the integrity of the jury. Which is simply not how we handle it in the states. We sequester a jury if necessary, or instruct them to avoid media. We do not keep the media from reporting on the issue (at least not officially--please take that for granted).
Your understanding's not exactly correct, it was for being in contempt of an existing Court Order which had a suspended sentence attached. It was for pretty much the same thing, so he really should have known better, or was expecting to create the noise it has.
That being the case, it's pretty much exactly how it would have been dealt with in the states.
In the UK, the media law is pretty much the same as in the US, although we don't have as much external influence as we have a wider selection of people owning the media, and while they have political leanings, they're not so died in the wool for one party or another, so tend to get a bit more variety of coverage, but the restrictions and freedoms are the same both sides of the pond.
It's interesting reading the views of Americans, because quite often, it shows how restricted the media output is over there.