So we do it and get prosecuted, they do it and all that happens is they say "sorry"......

Sorry indeed, so K M A to that.

"The HM Courts and Tribunals Service has told BBC Newsbeat it is sorry for publishing the names of the other defendants in the Watkins case online."

---

WHAT!!!!

It is quite obvious to this American, that Europe has not yet evolved into a modern thinking place.

If this was proposed here: There would be the greatest outcry and this idiot would not be in office too long.

Yes, I do understand all the problems in the US. But the foundational thinking, culture, our Constitution and understanding that The People are NOT subjects of the State: Tends to stop the above primitive thinking.

Doesn't seem that wrong to me.

It's just an extension of laws long established in traditional print media, to cover new digital media that hasn't existed before.

In the days before twitter, widely distributed publications like papers and radio were filtered by editors and other controls before they went public. Normal people didn't have mass publishing available to them so these problems didn't arise.
Now that J. Public esq. can instantly publish online to thousands if not millions of people without such filtering, a situation that's only arisen in the last few years, the potential for libelous or other objectionable content to spread has increased, so the older laws need adapting to the new situation.

---

Life on earth is the global equivalent of not storing things in the fridge.

Exactly!

But then what happens to those within the law when they breach their own laws? Saying "Sorry" just does not cut it.

---

North American courts are not quite the free for all that Clyde is dreaming of. Rules here about communications in and out of court, especially for jurors, apply to smart phones and such just as much as they apply to anything else.

Use by spectators and reporters is more case by case, but judges can and have restricted using social media in specific cases in both Canada and the US.

And of course this works both ways. I recently read a study that showed social media archives were used as "key evidence" in over 700 divorce trials in the US in 2012. I think all courts pretty much agree that anything posted on the Internet has no assumption of privacy. I recommend that you avoid using #bangingthemaidagain.

---

WHAT!!!!

It is quite obvious to this American, that Europe has not yet evolved into a modern thinking place.

If this was proposed here: There would be the greatest outcry and this idiot would not be in office too long.

Yes, I do understand all the problems in the US. But the foundational thinking, culture, our Constitution and understanding that The People are NOT subjects of the State: Tends to stop the above primitive thinking.

Hah! Do come back when America stopped being responsible for 25% of the worlds prison population (with a disproportionate amount of them being minorities) and executing mentally handicapped people.


That aside, this seems like a common sense rule to me. Wouldn't want fair trials become unfair because social media biased the people involved.

I think all courts pretty much agree that anything posted on the Internet has no assumption of privacy

For many years nutters, upstarts, extremists, social outcasts, bad tempered little people, have thought that they can say anything that they like on Internet bulletin boards and get away with it.

Oh boy, I don't think that HMC&TS would like that comment!

"The HM Courts and Tribunals Service has told BBC Newsbeat it is sorry for publishing the names of the other defendants in the Watkins case online."

---

After the last century: Why does Europe still persist in the failed idea of a Good Government, composed of Good People?

Now that is a Good question.

---

Why does the US persist in a government system where church and state are supposed to be separate, but usually rejects those who are not christians, or at least religious. And also has a system where if you don't have lots of money or wealthy backers it is again almost impossible to gain a seat.

I know what I said isn't strictly the truth, but that is the tabloid view from this side of the pond.

But my post was as true as that made by Clyde, about his view, from over there on what happens this side of the pond.

The last time the UK Monarch decided what the law should be was early in the 18th century.
The French guillotine all their Kings etc.

And just a quick history reminder Monarchy is hereditary system you don't vote for kings and queens.

edit] From Religious affiliation in the United States Senate

Compared with general population

The most basic breakdown of the above data indicates that 85% of the Senate is Christian (compared with 78%[201] of the population) and 10% of the Senate is Jewish (compared with 1.7% of the population).

The following list compares reported religious affiliations of U. S. Senators to religious statistics of the demographics of the United States of America:

Jews are represented by 10% of the Senate for 1.7% of the population. (5.88×)
Latter-Day Saints are represented by 7% of the Senate for 1.4% of the population. (5.00×)
Presbyterians are represented by 13% of the Senate for 2.8% of the population. (4.64×)
Episcopalians are represented by 4% of the Senate for 1.8% of the population. (2.22×)
Methodists are represented by 8% of the Senate for 7.2% of the population. (1.11×)
Lutherans are represented by 5% of the Senate for 4.6% of the population. (1.09×)
Catholics are represented by 28% of the Senate for 25.9% of the population. (1.08×)
Baptists are represented by 10% of the Senate for 17.2% of the population. (0.58×)
Unaffiliated are represented by 3% of the Senate for 16.1% of the population. (0.19×)
Muslims are represented by 0% of the Senate for 0.6% of the population. (0.00×)

So the Senate is over represented by Jews, Mormons, Presbyterians and Episcopalians. And well under represented by the Unaffiliated and Muslims.

It is not clear to me what this state vs. church arguement or big government bashing has to do with the original topic about commenting on court cases.

Guy and Clyde, I suggest you run down to your nearest court (federal, state or county), start preaching your red neck theories out loud while the court is in session, and see how far "I am the government" gets you.

---

A sore throat?

You made my point, and this is about the ORIGINAL post.

In Europe, and now increasing in Canada, the Rights of the People are being ILLEGALLY destroyed (American Thought).

American Thought: The People "are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness".

European Thought: Given/Taken by Government.

And that is why Europeans start to dislike Americans more and more. That exceptionalism gets extremely annoying, especially when it completely misplaced exceptionalism.

European laws, European ideas on government, the relation between government and the people in Europe is pretty much exactly the same as in the US. All European countries (except the UK) have constitutions, each of those constitutions has freedom of speech, freedom of religion, freedom of the press, the separation of the executive, judicial and legislative branch of government, etc.

The only difference in Europe however, is that we don't have such far sweeping, civil liberty destroying things like the Patriot Acts, the NDAA, that ridiculous war on drugs or something as stupid as the three strikes law. And unlike the US, Europe is not responsible for 25% of the worlds prison population, nor do we have such idiocies like a George Zimmerman being able to shoot a kid and get away with it.

Americans could do with a monarchic head of state, since their alternative seems to be a psychotic devotion to a 10x19 piece of cloth.

---

Life on earth is the global equivalent of not storing things in the fridge.

The Sovereign States are now telling Washington (Not the American Government) that FEDERAL LAWS do not apply within their States, and Washington has no Legal nor Practical power to enforce their laws. Could this happen in Europe/Canada?

Europe is not one country. Depending on what definition you take its either 28 sovereign countries or more. There exists no central European government. There is the EU, but the EU only has restricted competences in certain policy areas, most of which are related to the internal market and economic matters. And not all European countries are members.

To top that off, the way each European state is organized is different. Germany is a Federal Republic, much like the American model, so is Austria. The Netherlands is a constitutional monarchy, where the king is the head of state but has no power. Some countries have presidents, others have prime ministers, some have both, and the degree of power each one has is different.