🚀 go-pugleaf

In article <JWELLS.46.2D9283E7@ARTSPAS.watstar.uwaterloo.ca>, JWELLS@ARTSPAS.watstar.uwaterloo.ca writes:
> In article <1994Mar19.190204.567@sdg.dra.com> sean@sdg.dra.com writes:
>>From: sean@sdg.dra.com
>>Subject: Re: WiReD: just bad journalism re: Homolka info on Internet
>>Date: 19 Mar 94 19:02:04 CST
> 
[SOMEONE ELSE WROTE THIS... not sean@sdg.dra.com]
>>> There is no precedent for gag orders between
>>> countries ... and won't be short of negotiating treaties.  
> 
> Actually there is.  In the 1950's or 60's an American was tried and
> convicted for violating a publication ban in a Canadian court.  It was a 
> slightly different sort of ban, but nevertheless an American was tried and 
> convicted in absentia and then extradited as a convicted criminal to
> serve time in a Canadian jail.
> 
> It was no big deal in human terms -- the sentence was only 11 or 12 days, 
> but it's interesting from a legal perspective.

I couldn't find the case that matched the facts you reported.  I did find
a case from Edmunston, N.B. in 1982.  A U.S. reporter, Beumond Banville
attended a trial in Canada, where a judge had issued a publication ban.
Mr. Banville returned to the U.S., and reported the case in a U.S. newspaper.
He was then charged with contempt of court in Canada.  Mr. Banville
voluntarily returned to Canada, and found guilty of contempt.

In the Homlka case, only "approved" Canadian reporters were allowed in
the courtroom.  The Judge's order seemed to indicate only reporters
from large media organizations could be trusted with the information.
Which is probaly true, large media organizations tend to be more
conservative in their reporting.  Even then, as far as I have been
able to determine, the U.S. press only reported "banned" information
first made public by some Canadian source.  Its possible that the
U.S. reporters learned the information without ever being in Canada.
-- 
Sean Donelan, Data Research Associates, Inc, St. Louis, MO
Domain: sean@dra.com, Voice: (Work) +1 314-432-1100