Replies

This isn’t so cut and dried. I think cases like these need to be viewed, cases by case.

More from the article:

The legal wrangling is part of the trial of five suspects charged in the January 2007 carjacking, rape and murder of Channon Christian, 21, and her boyfriend, Christopher Newsom, 23, in Knoxville, Tenn.

As WND reported, five defendants face nearly 50 counts of kidnapping, robbery, gang-rape, murder and theft charges after Christian and Newsom were abducted, assaulted and tortured repeatedly over a period – probably of days – before being shot and killed.

Details in the aftermath of the slayings were not widely released, leading to a flurry of speculation – much of it unfounded – on the grisly details of the crime.

Internet “comment” sections also became a hotbed of discussion with particularly racial themes, as the victims were white and alleged perpetrators black.

Allowing anonymous, irresponsible comments to be published online, the petition argues, contaminates the jury and violates defendant’s Sixth Amendment rights to a fair trial.

An attorney for WBIR-TV, which along with the News Sentinel is specifically named in the petition, argued that the “comments” sections of their websites constitute a “giant bulletin board,” and as such is protected by the First Amendment.

This is a perfect example showing how sometimes protecting the rights of one group can infringe upon the rights of another.

This is a perfect example showing how sometimes protecting the rights of one group can infringe upon the rights of another.

That's assuming everyone agrees on the definition of what are considered irresponsible comments and who makes that decision. That makes it very subjective and creates a slippery slope of censorship. There are two courts. The court of law and the court of public opinion. Their purposes often collide. The latter can't be shutdown without violating the 1st amendment.

“contaminates the jury and violates defendant’s Sixth Amendment rights to a fair trial.”
Another attempt to confuse the public that the right to a fair trial, when you clients are obviously guilty, means you have a right to be tried by twelve ghetto hoods that believe in an inherent right to rape and murder. Funny how this only becomes an “issue” when the victims are white and the defendants black. I don't remember much outrage about contaminating the jury pool when a group of lacrosse players were being tried and convicted in the media when they were falsely accused by a black prostitute seeking a “white guilt” payday.
The defendants have a right to a fair trial. The jury and the world have the right to hear the evidence of the crime, the reasons why these defendants are the ones that committed the crime to the exclusion of doubt. And the world has the right to say whatever they feel about it. And, if these are the 5 asshats that did indeed torture and then murder, the death penalty should be swiftly applied.

These demonic creatures committed these horrors over 2 years ago. They should be crispy fried chittlins already.

If the judge were truly concerned that angry internet posters, who rightfully curse these demons,could effect the right of the defendents to a fair and speedy trial, then he could close the proceedings.

But no, he would rather waste more time, delaying the process yet longer, extending the pain and suffering of the victims’ relatives and friends.

Yo Judge, out here we have free speech. You can limit free speech in your courtroom. But don’t even try to extend your power to control matters outside of your courtroom.