Quote:
|
Originally Posted by KMA-628
Not to butt in, but this is interesting to me.
Having never really paid attention to Canadian politics, this and a previous thread have caught my interest (previous thread = the one about political identification in Canada).
This statement really stood out here:
Having read this story earlier in the week, I am confused about Canadian control over the media.
It seems that the Canadian gov't has the power to control the media, right?
According to Ace_O_Spades this is a good thing? Or am I reading his statement wrong?
How could a media ban on something like this be a good thing?
Obviously, I look at this from our standpoint, where, if our gov't put a total media ban on any subject/story/issue, pretty much the whole country would get seriously pissed. I know the gov't tries to kill stories when it fits their need, but I don't see them as capable of putting a complete ban in place, nor do I see a complete ban being successful.
Can you enlighten me on this?
|
You aren't quite understanding this... The US has in camera sessions all the time... from GWBush being question by the 911 commision to grand jury hearings.
The Paul Bernardo/Karla Homolka trial had a publication ban for a number of reasons, the main one was to protect the victims.
I don't have a problem with this at all.
In this case, I am truly mixed about the ban. The sessions in question are open to the public, anyone can go to the sessions and watch. You can tell people about it but you just can publish this information... at this time. The ban will be lifted at some point in the future (most likely when Brault and Guite's court cases occur). The concept is that getting this information out to a broad public will taint the population base and an unbaised jury will be difficult to find.
My issue is the same as the blogger's... this is IMPORTANT information. The Public is not stupid. They do not need to be sheltered and can be responsible jurors even with foreknowledge.