To: Red Badger
In Britain and Australia it sounds like the government has taken a cue from the MSM and is deciding what stories should and shouldn’t be reported on.
To: Steve_Seattle
It’s a quirk in British and Australian law.
Originally meant to protect nobility, IIRC.............
30 posted on
12/12/2018 9:17:38 AM PST by
Red Badger
(We are headed for a Civil War. It won't be nice like the last one....................)
To: Steve_Seattle
In Britain and Australia it sounds like the government has taken a cue from the MSM and is deciding what stories should and shouldn’t be reported on.
Don’t kid yourself. It happens in the US, too. There was one case where the court not only outlawed reporting on the case and verdict, but also made it illegal to report there was a suppression order.
55 posted on
12/12/2018 10:04:07 AM PST by
sparklite2
(See more at Sparklite Times)
To: Steve_Seattle
In Britain and Australia it sounds like the government has taken a cue from the MSM and is deciding what stories should and shouldn’t be reported on.Great Britain, not having a First Amendment, has always been very restricitive about what can be published about court cases (supposedly to protect judges and jurors from public influence). These rules go back 100 years, at least. Australia, being a Commonwealth country, took their rules from England.
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson