The WoodenBoat Forum - Doctor's visit

The WoodenBoat Forum (http://www.woodenboat.com/forum//index.php)

- The Bilge (http://www.woodenboat.com/forum//forumdisplay.php?f=5)

- - Doctor's visit (http://www.woodenboat.com/forum//showthread.php?t=106536)

Re: Doctor's visit

Quote:

Originally Posted by Norman Bernstein (Post 2411674)

I understand the basic sentiment you're expressing, but I can't agree. There's a huge gap between expressing one's opinion, and the 'lynching' you're referring to. We ALL have opinions and judgments, and none of us should be afraid to express them... as long as that's all we're doing with our opinions.

Well I agree with that Norman in all cases except cases before the law. But consulting Wikiedia, I find that this is one of those cultural differences I was unaware of.

Quote:

In law, sub judice, Latin for "under judgment," means that a particular case or matter is currently under trial or being considered by a judge or court. The term may be used synonymously with "the present case" or "the case at bar" by some lawyers.
In England and Wales, Ireland,[1] New Zealand, Australia, India, Pakistan, and Canada it is generally considered inappropriate to comment publicly on cases sub judice, which can be an offence in itself, leading to contempt of court proceedings. This is particularly true in criminal cases, where publicly discussing cases sub judice may constitute interference with due process.
In the United States, there are First Amendment concerns about stifling the right of free speech which prevent such tight restrictions on comments sub judice. However, State Rules of Professional Conduct governing attorneys often place restrictions on the out-of-court statements an attorney may make regarding an ongoing case. Furthermore, there are still protections for criminal defendants, and those convicted in an atmosphere of a circus have had their convictions overturned for a fairer trial.

As this is a US case, I withdraw my objection:)

Re: Doctor's visit

Quote:

Originally Posted by shamus (Post 2411731)

Well I agree with that Norman in all cases except cases before the law. But consulting Wikiedia, I find that this is one of those cultural differences I was unaware of.

As this is a US case, I withdraw my objection:)

Your C&P about the 'sub judice' issue was VERY interesting.... I never knew about that before... thanks for pointing it out!

In thinking about it for all of a few minutes, my first reaction would be that the demands of the First Ammendment should take precedence over the risks and liabilities of sub judice. I would imagine that, even in countries cited where sub judice itself is potentially a criminal or civil act, it's utterly impossible for some prejudicial information not to make it's way into the public domain... if there is to be a free press.

But, then again, that's an opinion formed after only a very short time.... I'd have to 'chew the cud' on this one a bit more.

Re: Doctor's visit

Where it mentions an offence, this would usually only apply to press speculation. The press can generally outline facts, report the line which the prosecutor is taking, and the line the defence is taking, and as you can imagine a fair amount of innuendo can be worked within that framework.
Fairly recently, a television series (un)loosely based on Melbourne's underworld was prevented from airing in that state while gangland trials were taking place, which was fairly pointless given modern communications.

I don't know if schools would still teach it or not (should ask my kids) but we were definitely taught that it was poor form- and I had just taken it for granted that this was universal. Interesting.

Re: Doctor's visit

Quote:

Originally Posted by shamus (Post 2411731)

Sub judice usually refers to the press and commercial electronic media , I can't see any conceivable way it could be invoked over internet discusson groups .I've hear discussion of this on the ABC Law Report ,I suspect the law is just going to pretend it doesn't happen .

Re: Doctor's visit

Actually, Peter, I bet it could be invoked, if someone felt it worthwhile. Remember the case where libel was upheld against someone outside Australia talking about an Australian citizen on the internet? However, as I said above, the law is generally only applied to the media, and rarely,because they generally respect it (apart from Derryn Hinch!).

Re: Doctor's visit

It could be invoked , probably to get a case thrown out ,IF the judiciary was sympathetic , which is a big if .

Re: Doctor's visit

Agreed. In any case, when I spoke of discovering a cultural difference, I wasn't referring to the legal implications, but the cultural ones- that's the "generally considered inappropriate" bit.

Re: Doctor's visit

Well, it takes a special person to do what he did, however the his day in court turns out. I'm glad he's not my neighbour.

Re: Doctor's visit

Quote:

Originally Posted by PeterSibley (Post 2411642)

Explicit .

George has had a compassion bypass .

This is the salient point. Here is the Australian who has been paying attention to more than just "the incident." Evenin' Peter!

Re: Doctor's visit

responding to a post above, I have ALWAYS assumed that I could be taken up and accused/tried/found guilty of some horrindous crime I didn't do. that is the primary reason for my defense of George. Anyone who thinks "it can't happen to me" is very foolsih indeed!