救命~~~ media law - 係未開審前傳媒審判引起對當事人有成見/偏見 + 司法公平同埋言論自由 [復制鏈接]

係做左一些research 後, 我有左個draft , 唔知各位覺得如何? 依遍文佔分好重, 對我來說好重要, 希望大家可以俾d意見. 因為係論文的關係, 意見唔一定要100% correct, 有point, 有原因back-up就可以.

我的論點係認為傳媒係報道一些未開審/或未判決的案件時應該被更加約束來保障社會大眾對司法獨立,公平和公正的要求. 言論自由和公開討論的要求不應凌駕於法獨立,公平和公正的要求. 同時間, 因為被告能否得到公平審判係刑事案來說係好重要, 所以, 就算係一件社會關注的案件, 若果傳媒公開討論會構成對被告不公平, 咁樣都應該係藐視法庭.

(1) 首先講傳媒認為言論自由的重要性, 包括從個人和社會角度講 - 如俾人講d反對的意見

(2) 言論自由亦包括公開討論社會關注的案件 - Open Court

(3) 再用萊斯特個point - 佢地只係講d大眾意見, 反映 public opinion.

(4) 反駁佢地 - 首先講傳媒權力過大, 鐘意做乜就做乜. 可以未開審已經講到條友有罪. 要約束佢地

(5) 提出 - responsible speech - 附責任的言論, 言論自由都唔等如亂講野. 要對講過的話附責

(6) 再講人權- 每個人都應該有公平的審判, 依d係基本人權. 比傳媒眼中的言論自由重要

(7) 我自己有d proposal 去點樣約束佢地

請俾意見



--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

大檸樂... 要寫文...

“It is of extreme public interest that no conduct should be permitted which is likely to prevent a litigant in a court of justice from having his case tried free from all matter of prejudice.

But the administration of justice, important though it undoubtedly is, is not the only matter in which the public is vitally interested; and if in the course of the ventilation of a question of public concern matter is published which may prejudice a party in the conduct of a law suit, it does not follow that a contempt has been committed.” (Ex parte Bread Manufacturers Ltd; Re Truth and Sportsman Ltd (1937), per Jordan CJ, CM, vol 2, 495)

Comment the above statement

Is ‘trial by media’ a significant concern?

Is there a need for an appropriate balance between the interests of justice and free speech? or either one of them outweights the other.

注: contempt of courts = words or actions that interfere with the administration of justice or constitute a disregard for the authority of a court. 唔一定要係法庭內講

3500 words~~~ wanna die~ please help


[[中文大約意思:   基於公眾利益,係任可行為或情況下都不能令一個被告/原告的權利係未開案前被傳媒影響或影響到判決或引起成見/偏見

但同時間, 私法公平公正不是公眾唯一注意/感興趣的事, 如果公開一件大眾關注的事/案情(件)會有可能引起對當事人有成見/偏見的話, 咁樣唔等如藐視法庭

請講講你對上文的意見

傳媒審判係咪好值得關注? 有需要balance私法公平同埋言論自由? or 你認為其中一樣較重要d?

注: contempt of courts = words or actions that interfere with the administration of justice or constitute a disregard for the authority of a court

要寫3500 字~!!! 各好友有何高見, 打中英文reply 都得. 除你喜歡

謝謝

我只知傳媒有一個好重要既責任就係「是說是,非說非」

下面是引用萊斯特於2006-03-22 00:56發表的:
我只知傳媒有一個好重要既責任就係「是說是,非說非」

請繼續, 我知你未講完的 你試下detail d 講講

from my (limited) knowledge, there's a rule that the media SHOULD report any law case ONLY with the brief facts, and try to limit the pasage as little as possible.

in newspapers such as 'fruit', "有人" should be used instead of pointing directly to the defendent

下面是引用ryan_ho於2006-03-22 01:07發表的:
請繼續, 我知你未講完的 [表情] 你試下detail d 講講

我知識&打字能力有限.......只能亂吹多兩句........

其實我較偏重言論自由ge......
假如社會各界普遍民智唔低,有判斷性思維,始終傳媒審判的影響力不大......

下面是引用kylau於2006-03-22 01:18發表的:
from my (limited) knowledge, there's a rule that the media SHOULD report any law case ONLY with the brief facts, and try to limit the pasage as little as possible.
in newspapers such as 'fruit', "有人" should be used instead of pointing directly to the defendent

佢地唔排除可以比人告 defamation 如果佢地已經寫到果個人有罪. 但如果只係話"suspect", 就算之後d人都覺得佢係有罪就唔算

但你覺得free speech 同 interest of justice 邊樣重要d??? or 一樣重要

而且假如傳媒審判係可以引起成見/偏見,構成民眾壓力而影響到判決.....
這亦可算是受社會主流價值觀所影響的判決........
而社會的價值觀亦是立法前所考慮到的,姑此亦無不可..........

而且當有受具 動性報導而引起成見/偏見出現後,報章上亦會有高人懶係智者咁出言道破

下面是引用萊斯特於2006-03-22 01:51發表的:
而且假如傳媒審判係可以引起成見/偏見,構成民眾壓力而影響到判決.....
這亦可算是受社會主流價值觀所影響的判決........
而社會的價值觀亦是立法前所考慮到的,姑此亦無不可..........
而且當有受具 動性報導而引起成見/偏見出現後,報章上亦會有高人懶係智者咁出言道破

我指影響到法庭內陪審團. 未必一定全社會民眾壓力

你依個point幾值得講, 但點解你會覺得可以被傳媒報道影響到的判決 = 社會主流價值觀 (或社會價值觀)???

當然, 諗諗下, 未必一定limit法庭內陪審團.

下面是引用ryan_ho於2006-03-22 02:01發表的:
我指影響到法庭內陪審團. 未必一定全社會民眾壓力
你依個point幾值得講, 但點解你會覺得可以被傳媒報道影響到的判決 = 社會主流價值觀 (或社會價值觀)???
.......

我相信能影響到判決的傳媒報道唔多唔少都涉及到社會各界輿論既支持..............

我發覺你好識tum人

我其實唔係好明條問題講咩....只不過係想透過俾d旁觀者/門外漢見解,希望能為你帶來新刺激

下面是引用萊斯特於2006-03-22 02:34發表的:
我相信能影響到判決的傳媒報道唔多唔少都涉及到社會各界支持..............
我發覺你好識tum人 [表情]
.......

真係架, 唔係順口講. 我諗下諗下你依個"社會主流價值觀 "的point 好有用, 好 arguable.

重有我頭先沖涼時諗起你依個point. 我有以下諗法:

引用陪審團就係想反映社會主流價值觀

但同時, 法庭唔係立法局, 議員或問責的行政官員. 佢地唔係民選出來. 咁係咪/有冇必要一定要 去反映民意甚至乎每個判決都一定要去反映民意. 所以係咪要俾media 話事, 影響判決???

我好likely 會用你頭先個point, 係睇下點用 --- for or against

我連個問題都唔清楚佢想問咩…………

下面是引用freezefox於2006-03-22 12:39發表的:
我連個問題都唔清楚佢想問咩…………

點唔明??? 佢比左一偏同傳媒審判有關的statement你 之後再問你問題

“It is of extreme public interest that no conduct should be permitted which is likely to prevent a litigant in a court of justice from having his case tried free from all matter of prejudice. But the administration of justice, important though it undoubtedly is, is not the only matter in which the public is vitally interested; and if in the course of the ventilation of a question of public concern matter is published which may prejudice a party in the conduct of a law suit, it does not follow that a contempt has been committed.” (Ex parte Bread Manufacturers Ltd; Re Truth and Sportsman Ltd (1937), per Jordan CJ, CM, vol 2, 495)

Is ‘trial by media’ a significant concern?

「基於公眾利益,係任可行為或情況下都不能令一個被告/原告的權利係未開案前被傳媒影響或影響到判決或引起成見/偏見。但同時間, 私法公平公正不是公眾唯一注意/感興趣的事, 如果公開一件大眾關注的事/案情(件)會有可能引起對當事人有成見/偏見的話, 咁樣唔等如藐視法庭。請講講你對上文的意見」


意思係咪問：

若然傳媒係審訊前，廣泛報導該案件，即使令到被告/原告既權益受到直接或間接既損害，但基於公眾有知情權既大原則下，唔能夠係法律上被指控為「藐視法庭」。



係咪咁？

我覺用實際例子黎討論，大家都會清晰d。

下面是引用freezefox於2006-03-22 15:05發表的:
我覺用實際例子黎討論，大家都會清晰d。

依個係一個法官講果個野, 個lecturer 拿來用作essay topic