Australian Gag Order Stokes Global Debate on Secrecy

Australian newspapers are actually getting a bit creative in relation to this case due to the profile of the person.<p>On the day of the conviction, they released online articles about &quot;suppression orders&quot;.<p>-----<p>* <a href="https:&#x2F;&#x2F;www.theage.com.au&#x2F;national&#x2F;victoria&#x2F;why-the-media-is-unable-to-report-on-a-case-that-has-generated-huge-interest-online-20181212-p50lta.html" rel="nofollow">https:&#x2F;&#x2F;www.theage.com.au&#x2F;national&#x2F;victoria&#x2F;why-the-media-is...</a><p>* <a href="https:&#x2F;&#x2F;outline.com&#x2F;jVdYJr" rel="nofollow">https:&#x2F;&#x2F;outline.com&#x2F;jVdYJr</a><p># Why the media is unable to report on a case that has generated huge interest online #<p>&gt; A very high-profile figure was convicted on Tuesday of a serious crime, but we are unable to report their identity due to a suppression order.<p>&gt; The person, whose case has attracted significant media attention, was convicted on the second attempt, after the jury in an earlier trial was unable to reach a verdict. They will be remanded when they return to court in February for sentencing.<p>-----<p>The article then goes on about suppression orders and how Google Trends for the person&#x27;s name increased on the day of the trial.<p>So anyone who is internet-savvy would be able to figure out who it was.

Pell is involved in two separate trials. Until the second trial is completed, the gag suppresses news on the verdict in the first trial.<p>Without the gag, it&#x27;s very unlikely that it would possible to obtain a conviction against Pell in the second trial.<p>Once the second trial is over, both verdicts are able to be discussed and circulated as news.

Yeah... look, with our Government passing far reaching anti-encryption laws (that impact the <i>entire world</i>) without the need for judicial oversight[1] and planning to move our embassy from Tel Aviv to Jerusalem after officially recognising the latter as the capital of Israel[2], and the general Australian population paying no bloody attention at all; gag orders are pretty low down on the list of stupid shit going on.<p>It&#x27;s getting down-right depressing to be an Australian citizen.<p>[1] <a href="https:&#x2F;&#x2F;www.itnews.com.au&#x2F;news&#x2F;australias-encryption-bill-faces-17-changes-to-pass-parliament-516547" rel="nofollow">https:&#x2F;&#x2F;www.itnews.com.au&#x2F;news&#x2F;australias-encryption-bill-fa...</a> [2] <a href="https:&#x2F;&#x2F;www.theguardian.com&#x2F;world&#x2F;2018&#x2F;dec&#x2F;14&#x2F;australian-government-to-recognise-jerusalem-as-israels-capital" rel="nofollow">https:&#x2F;&#x2F;www.theguardian.com&#x2F;world&#x2F;2018&#x2F;dec&#x2F;14&#x2F;australian-gov...</a>

A few days ago I, an Australian, got an Apple News alert on my laptop about a Washington Post article that discussed Pell&#x27;s conviction. When I clicked the alert, Apple News opened and displayed the article in full, uncensored.<p>I&#x27;m curious to know if Apple would therefore be in breach of the suppression order even though they&#x27;re not the publisher, and if they are in breach, if anything is likely to happen to them as a result. I haven&#x27;t seen any mention of it anywhere else, but I can&#x27;t imagine I&#x27;m the only person to have received the alert.

This week there have also been very similar issues raised around a gag order issued by a court in New Zealand, which is intended to keep the identity of a murder accused secret. The victim in this case was a British tourist, so the media in England has been reporting heavily on the case.

Media the world over do withhold names: rape victims, underage defendants, so it isn&#x27;t impossible for them to control themselves if there was a clear risk of a miscarriage of justice (which may or may not be the case in this instance).<p>Slightly off-topic, but the picture in the article of a (recently demolished) newsstand neatly represents the international portrayal of Australia...laid back people in flip-flops lounging about without a care in the world. The reality is that, given the location, those were far more likely to have been tourists.

So who is it?

The first thing I recalled after learning about this case, was the case of Lindy Chamberlain-Creighton [0].<p>I have heard arguments in the past for this kind of censorship. In my country (Panama) the closest thing is called &quot;reserva del sumario,&quot; (secrecy of the proceedings) but there is no way enforce it legally against parties not involved in the trial afaiu. The most the former chief prosecutor (of a very corrupt governement) was able to call on the main journalistic association to remind journalists of their dury to respect the secrecy of the proceedings.<p>I stand in favor of not limiting freedom of expression. We should not limit ourselves to framing the issue as one of free expression vs a free trial (or a free election, since I just mentioned a Latin American country). Risking being too optimistic, I think that instead of framing the issue as one overexposed potentially false suspicions or opinions, one should see it as one of underexposed relevant opinions.<p><a href="https:&#x2F;&#x2F;en.wikipedia.org&#x2F;wiki&#x2F;Lindy_Chamberlain-Creighton" rel="nofollow">https:&#x2F;&#x2F;en.wikipedia.org&#x2F;wiki&#x2F;Lindy_Chamberlain-Creighton</a>

Anyone knows how such trials work? What evidence can there be from 30 or more years ago? Is it two parties saying the opposite and the jury choosing who to believe?

But what about social media? Can’t see how these gag orders work anymore when you can see results on your FB wall or Twitter etc.

From the Hacker News guidelines [1]: &quot;If they&#x27;d cover it on TV news, it&#x27;s probably off-topic.&quot; (IIRC, this particular guideline dates back to when Hacker News was called Startup News).<p>The linked article, from the New York Times, elliptically discusses a topic that the New York Times itself cannot report on in its online edition, due to a gag order by an Australian judge. So it is not covered, and cannot be covered, by the modern-day equivalent of TV news.<p>[1] <a href="https:&#x2F;&#x2F;news.ycombinator.com&#x2F;newsguidelines.html" rel="nofollow">https:&#x2F;&#x2F;news.ycombinator.com&#x2F;newsguidelines.html</a>

Just yet another reason for common law countries to adopt constitutions that are explicitly not open to interpretation<p>You can see how easy even a body without executive power per se can mop the floor with weakly defined common law freedom of speech statues