🚀 go-pugleaf

In article <1993Dec7.011318.28742@sol.UVic.CA> tangrign@nero.uvic.ca (Troy Angrignon) writes:
>From: tangrign@nero.uvic.ca (Troy Angrignon)
>Subject: Re: Let us stop and think for a minute (was PUBLICATION BAN 
>Date: Tue, 7 Dec 93 01:13:18 GMT
>In article <nikon.729.0@ee470.EE.McGill.CA>
>nikon@ee470.EE.McGill.CA (Stephen M. Eisenberg) writes:
>
>> given a press pass?  By what authority does the press work?  Self appointed 
>> "guardians" of society?  Somehow I trust the Canadian courts more so than 
>> the foreign press.
>
>As for your first question, that is one of the oddities which has
>arisen from the decision of Judge Kouvack (sp?). He allowed Canadian
>press members (ie employees of a company which is recognized as a
>publisher in Canada), but no foreign press. This implies a
>differentiation between those two groups. 

Yes, the Canadian press is more subject to bans, et cetera, than a foreign 
press who leaves our nation and is no longer subject to our laws.

He also disallowed the
>general public, therefore differentiating between the press and the
>public. So, the message that this sends out is that the members of the
>court can know the details, the members of the press who are present
>may know the details, but the public who is supposed to judge whether
>or not our trial system is working are not allowed to know what is
>going on.

But as members of the families were present, the concept of general public 
was satisfied.  You also have to take into consideration the circus like 
goings on outside the court.  The judge did limit admission, but this can be 
considered as crowd contol.

>
>The more I think about it, it seems to be an issue of control. If John
>PressReporter attends the case, and his employer leaks some
>information, the court can then nail that company. If Sue
>PubliclyConcerned goes to watch the trial, since registration is not
>necessary up front, she can then leave the room, publish the news
>directly 

And be taken to court as she is publishing banned material.

>and the court has no way to enforce its ridiculous ban. 

A knock at her door and several large men in police uniforms holding a court 
order is a very quick way to stop her.

The
>decision to allow the media in was merely a PR ass-saving move. You can
>bloody well bet that if he had disallowed even their attendance that we
>would have all heard about it on the front page.

Yes, but the families were still allowed in.  The press were allowed in to 
have the events taking place in public view (though a closed court) even with
the limitation of what can be reported.  As said above, the outside of the 
court was a zoo.  Better to have the zoo left outside that allowed into the 
court.

>
>Troy Angrignon ------------------ e-mail: tangrign@nero.UVic.CA

-------------------------------------------------------------.--
                 STEPHEN M. EISENBERG

      McGill University, Montreal, Quebec, CANADA
              nikon@ee470.ee.mcgill.ca

Photographer for hire!   35mm      6x6       4x5       5x7