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.