[Freakinoldguy]

Zipperfish Zipperfish:

hurley_108 hurley_108:

If there is an increase use of publication bans, it may be a counter-response to the increasing speed and reach of news on the internet.

The way I see it, the court's first duty is to the integrity of the judicial system and the fairness of the trial, not to the curiosity and lust for gossip of the general public. If you're referring to such cases as the publication ban in the Tori Stafford case, the just for the female defendant's case did lift that ban after the verdict was decided.

Yes, the people have a right to know, but the defendant has a right to a fair trial. The former can be put on hold and satisfied later, but a jury pool can be forever tainted if too much info gets out too fast and so the latter cannot.

I was thinking more of the BC Rail corruption scandal, actually. This was a relatively big deal in BC, but a long publication ban pretty much ensured that the Liberals stayed in power in BC, even if they were in fact involved in corruption.

Can you say.................. Christie Clark?

$1:

Clark's oft-repeated position on the matter is that she and her relatives were never charged with anything, and the bad guys are doing time. "It's case closed," she said this week.

[Newfy]

DrCaleb DrCaleb:

What if we don't want him back?

This story is exactly why I believe there is a need for organizations like Wikileaks.

While I whole heartedly believe in free speech, I also believe that organizations like Wikileaks are very dangerous. There are some things that the public just shouldn't know and things that could put people like me in danger if they are released to the public. That's why we have the Official Secrets Act.

[DrCaleb]

Newfy Newfy:

DrCaleb DrCaleb:

What if we don't want him back?

This story is exactly why I believe there is a need for organizations like Wikileaks.

While I whole heartedly believe in free speech, I also believe that organizations like Wikileaks are very dangerous. There are some things that the public just shouldn't know and things that could put people like me in danger if they are released to the public. That's why we have the Official Secrets Act.

I don't believe that anyone in Wikileaks wants operational data leaked that could cause people harm. Julian Assange has said that repeatedly. And so far, Wilileaks hasn't.

However, embarrassment to diplomats, and the dinner menu for the G20 summit are not going to put your life in danger. I whole heartedly support your serving our country at what may be the cost of your life, but this article (and Wikileaks) isn't about free speech. It's about knowing what our government is doing in our name with our tax dollars. We have that right, and for them to stamp 'classified' on everything because they didn't feel like actually doing work to determine it's real threat to national security is wrong. It also diminishes things that really do compromise national security.

It's no different that saying information can't be released due to 'privacy concerns'. BS. Like cause of death information on that child killed in daycare recently can't be released due to 'privacy concerns'. She's dead. What privacy concerns could she have?

[redhatmamma]

Agreed that there are some things the public doesn't need to know..

Too bad the CBC doesn't believe in it though, as they have been blocking access under the FOI act to their records, for some time. Do as I say, not as I do LOL

[Bodah]

Almost every federal institution complies with the Freedom to information act except the Senate, CBC and Office of Official Languages. None of your business anyways.

[Zipperfish]

I'm not sure that's the case. It seems there have been incidents of senior bureaucrats and Ministers frustrating FOI requests, and failure to meet legislatively imposed deadlines is commonplace.

The problem for Harper is that "controlling the message" and "transparent government" are mutually exclusive goals.

[hurley_108]

Bodah Bodah:

None of your business anyways.

I really hope you mean that in the sense that you're suggesting this is the attitude of the three entities you named, not in the sense that the inner workings of government are none of the people's business. That way totalitarianism lies.

[redhatmamma]

That's what I'm wondering too, I take it he was being sarcastic It really is our business what the CBC does with our money, for the most part anyway.