My! It is not enforced at all, is it?
Thanks.
I get the impression that the whole media show is to get a conviction based on mob rule rather than facts!Particularly in cases like Strauss-Kahn's it can be damaging to the whole process for details to be published prematurely: how, for example, can you be sure of getting a 'clean' jury pool not influenced by media coverage beforehand?
I think the 'reported' details should be taken with a grain of salt: all kinds of rumours abound, many contradictory to each other.One detail I've seen reported, for example, is that NYPD's evidence collected at the scene includes the sheets from his room, with blood on. Unless it's his (a nosebleed perhaps?) it would quite strongly indicate some violent altercation took place - indeed, more violent than the little glimpse most media reports have given us of the incident.
I do not get that. 'Went at'? 'Like a rutting ape'? Does that mean sex? Or does that mean rape? The actually aren't the same, though many people seem to think so, which is quite worrying! I do not see where the blood comes in.The story of a previous incident in which he went at a much younger female journalist "like a rutting ape" seems to fit that, though.
I can see reasons for both restrictions. The first is obvious as we have discussed, but I cannot see any 'public interest' in who is sleeping with whom either, it is a matter concerning the involved parties only.Tying in with other recent headlines in the UK, this is what media reporting restrictions were originally supposed to be used for in the UK: where detailed media coverage of a criminal case in progress would impede a fair trial, not because releasing information is inconvenient to some 'celebrity'!
I do not see why it should be allowed to make peoples lives hell on earth, just because they are known and the press says it is ok.