Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Charlatan
.
As for the limitation of Free Speech... what if it was just a publication ban? You can chat all you want with co-workers, family, strangers, etc. but the media is forbidden from publishing anything about it.
|
Won't work in this country--the same First Amendment that gives freedom of speech also gives freedom of the press. Now, I recognize that "free speech" is not unlimited, but I don't see restricting jurors AFTER the trial is over from talking about it is ever going to pass constitutional muster in this country.
Quote:
|
There just doesn't seem to be anything good that comes from the media splashing these people's mugs all over the place and publishing their second guesses.
|
I agree with that, but the evil in stopping it seems worse.
Quote:
Being able to profit from being on a jury just seems rather crazy to me and just doesn't seem right. I know if I was on a jury and some joker on the panel wrote about our deliberations I'd be pissed. It just seems to trivialize what is an important task (and yes I know Pauly Shore has already been there and done that...  ).
|
I can honestly say that I have no idea what you're talking about with Pauly Shore--and am glad of it (I assume he was on jury duty in a movie?). Yes, I'd not be happy if someone blabbed when we were done, especially if they were second-guessing our group decision.
I do wonder about being able to restrict business transactions resulting from jury service. That MIGHT be OK; after all, there are laws that prevent criminals from making any money from the media accounts (books, movies, interviews) of their misdeeds. I admit I'm not a constitutional scholar, so someone with more knowledge in this area would know better if such could be enforced.