Comment is free Contempt laws are still valid in the internet age

It is not always easy to reconcile freedom of expression for the needs of the judiciary. As Attorney General, I see my role as a good defender of freedom of the press and the judiciary. And it is the guardian of public interest, not the minister that I do in case of violation, in order to protect the rights of the accused to a fair trial is clear and compelling public interest.In the English system, the contempt of Court Act, the system for the protection of these rights by limiting what they should be published about the case, then he is alive, so that the allegations are not relevant or not tested in court are not part of the consideration the jury. Other jurisdictions may have different ways of working hard to make these rights (eg, some - including many in the U.S. - the practice of jury selection) to protect.Last weekend, the question of how the law of contempt operates in the information age has been raised again. It is the contempt of Court Act 1981 applies, irrelevant, or even easier in the context of rapid communication in the whole world through the Internet?There is no doubt that the properties of the Internet and social media, particularly a challenge for law enforcement. Comments and information - information that is incorrect or - outside the jurisdiction of the United Kingdom sent can only be overcome through hard work and international cooperation. In a democracy, the Internet, which can be published by one person "viral" in a matter of hours, with obvious implications. Comments may be on the website of their audience far beyond the original published is limited and I use that word deliberately released, such as publications, of course, the term used in contempt of Federal Court Act -. an online article in violation of the no-fault liability, you run the risk, on the law of contempt.Unlike mainstream media, that the complex plot in a responsible and measured, people often feel the Internet is not restricted by state law. There is a belief that something is, to be published in the virtual world does not need the law of libel or slander to obey. This is wrong. And that does not mean that the police because they can not be perfect, uniform and universal, it is unnecessary to do something. I must definitely look for themselves. Just because in one case that I remember, perhaps, that the tweet, but it is not true, is not likely to seriously impair or impede the course of justice, it would be wrong to think this tweet others on the other cases, the law of contempt are not included and require action on my part.To be clear, contempt Court Act 1981 is intended to prohibit or restrict the freedom of speech - far from it. The bill was introduced as a measure of liberalization in the wake of the decision, in 1979, the European Court of Human Rights.This defines the limit of time points at which the transmitter is in danger, scorn, would protect journalists against disclosure to protect the confidentiality of the discussions in the jury room to retire, and the defense in cases of public discussion. It is also responsible for the contempt, so called because the reporter or editor, individual insults, without making the intention of the law.Of course, the action is set up, as are newspapers and radio stations, the only means available, and the pool is quite small, but I think it's the sound of the right of the modern era.I try not to compare, and I do not want to monitor. Inexorable rise of the Internet and citizen journalists we are presenting challenges for the future. We must work together to ensure that the highest professional standards maintained at the same time, press freedom and freedom of expression are not collected and used by individuals to undermine the fairness of our judicial system.