It's one of those
individual rights that we in the UK and Canada (and I'm sure some other places) do take seriously.
The same issue arose during the Paul Bernardo trial in Canada. A publication ban was imposed at the preliminary inquiry, as it actually is routinely (although not automatically), even in minor criminal cases. Many US media decided to flout it.
By the way, a preliminary inquiry is the rough counterpart of a grand jury hearing in the US -- a procedure to determine whether the prosecution has enough evidence to support the charge and proceed to trial -- except that the hearing is open to the press and public, and it is a judge who decides whether the prosecution has met its burden. The accused is present and represented, and may call evidence but seldom does. Quite different from the secrecy of grand jury proceedings in the US, about which one seldom hears any complaints ... in the US or from interested foreigners.
The point is to avoid poisoning the jury pool or putting the judge under undue pressure. (Trials on serious charges may be held before judge alone in Canada, at the option of the accused.) We do take the constitutional guarantee:
11. Any person charged with an offence has the right
(d) to be presumed innocent until proven guilty according to law in a fair and public hearing by an independent and impartial tribunal;
seriously.
Free speech is also an important right, and is recognized as being important not just for the individual, but for the society, it being crucial that the public be informed about matters that affect it.
It's one of those balancing acts. And the act must be performed as transparently as possible, and the actor must be seen to be balancing the interests fairly and objectively.
There was a case in Canada last year where this may not have been done. Charges were laid against several individuals in BC who were federal Liberal Party back-room boys and employees of provincial Liberal Party cabinet members. There were rumours that drug money had been used to influence the federal Liberal leadership campaign, and that there had been corruption in the process of privatizing a major provincial transportation asset. The judge had promised to order disclosure of the RCMP's warrant information on a particular date, giving them time to complete the investigation ... and then a provincial election was called, and oddly, he reneged. That one smelled.
There is a case in the US right now involving the same balancing act. A Pennsylvania state representative is being investigated in relation to the death of a neighbour child, apparently shot with one of the representative's guns. His home was searched. The media are seeking disclosure of the warrant information. The judge has reserved decision:
http://www.phillyburbs.com/pb-dyn/news/103-08232006-701829.htmlIt makes no more sense to jerk the kneee and screech "censorship" in a situation like this than it does to screech "censorship" against a law prohibiting the advertising of snake oil to cure cancer. There is are private interests and public interests in play that must both be considered -- and let's not forget the private interests of the media seeking to publish information. The media are
not more impartial than courts.
Different societies, with different histories and traditions and priorities, can do things differently without one being a utopia of liberty and the other being a hellhole of oppression. Just as individuals of goodwill can have different opinions on an issue without one being a paragon of liberal virtue and the other being an evil fascist.
And this is indeed a situation in which individuals with similar values -- valuing both free speech and the right to a fair trial -- might honestly differ. But those on both sides would, as always, be wise to know what they're talking about first, and to recognize that someone who disagrees is not necessarily an agent of the imperialist oppressors.