Gag order: Difference between revisions
m de |
m Belongs in injunction |
||
| Line 6: | Line 6: | ||
Gag orders are often used against participants involved in a lawsuit or criminal trial. They are also a tool to prevent media from publishing unwanted information on a particular topic. A Criminal Court, for instance, will issue a gag order on the media if the judge believes that potential jurors in a future trial will be influenced by the media reporting or speculation on the early stages of a case. Another example might be to ensure police are not impeded in their investigations by media publicity about a case. |
Gag orders are often used against participants involved in a lawsuit or criminal trial. They are also a tool to prevent media from publishing unwanted information on a particular topic. A Criminal Court, for instance, will issue a gag order on the media if the judge believes that potential jurors in a future trial will be influenced by the media reporting or speculation on the early stages of a case. Another example might be to ensure police are not impeded in their investigations by media publicity about a case. |
||
In a similar manner, a 'gag law' is intended to limit [[freedom of the press]], by instituting [[censorship]] or restricting access to information. |
In a similar manner, a 'gag law' is intended to limit [[freedom of the press]], by instituting [[censorship]] or restricting access to information. |
||
==Super-injunction== |
|||
In [[England and Wales]] a new form of [[injunction]] known as a "super-injunction" is a form of gagging order in which the press is prohibited from reporting even the existence of the injunction, or any details of it.<ref>''[[Press Gazette]]'', 14 October 2009, [http://www.pressgazette.co.uk/story.asp?sectioncode=1&storycode=44466&c=1 MPs slam 'super injunction' which gagged Guardian]</ref><ref>http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2009/oct/13/super-injunctions-guardian-carter-ruck</ref> An example was the super-injunction raised in September 2009 by [[Carter-Ruck]] solicitors on behalf of oil trader [[Trafigura]], prohibiting the reporting of an internal Trafigura report into the [[2006 Côte d'Ivoire toxic waste dump]] scandal. The existence of the super-injunction was only revealed when it was referred to in a parliamentary question (mention in which [[Parliamentary privilege]] permits the disclosure without being held in contempt of court), which was circulated on the internet, leading to the injunction being varied (before it could be challenged in court) to permit reporting of the question. By long legal tradition, parliamentary proceedings may be reported without restriction.<ref>''[[The Guardian]]'', 13 October 2009, [http://www.guardian.co.uk/media/2009/oct/13/trafigura-drops-gag-guardian-oil Trafigura drops bid to gag Guardian over MP's question]</ref> Parliamentary proceedings are only covered by qualified privilege. |
|||
==Examples of gag orders== |
==Examples of gag orders== |
||
| Line 35: | Line 32: | ||
===United Kingdom=== |
===United Kingdom=== |
||
A gag order has been used to protect 'national security'. In the [[Allan Chappelow]] murder case, the trial was held mostly [[in camera]] and media were prevented from speculating on the case. The order was imposed after a "compelling case" made by prosecutors, despite overwhelming media opposition brought by a |
A gag order has been used to protect 'national security'. In the [[Allan Chappelow]] murder case, the trial was held mostly [[in camera]] and media were prevented from speculating on the case. The order was imposed after a "compelling case" made by prosecutors, despite overwhelming media opposition brought by a le♠gal challenge to the ruling.<ref>[http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/7190269.stm Secrecy ruling over murder trial], [[BBC News]], January 15, 2008.</ref><ref>[http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2008/jan/11/politics.ukcrime Secrets and lies], [[The Guardian]], January 11, 2008.</ref><ref>[http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/uk/article3182382.ece Papers fight move to hear trial in secret], [[The Times]], January 14, 2008.</ref> This criminal case has been thought to be the first in which a gagging order was imposed.<ref>[http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/uk/crime/article3042941.ece Why is Home Office trying to stage murder trial in secret?], The Times, December 17, 2007.</ref> |
||
==See also== |
==See also== |
||
Revision as of 00:35, 20 August 2010
A gag order (also known as a gagging order or suppression order) is an order, sometimes a legal order by a court or government, other times a private order by an employer or other institution, restricting information or comment from being made public.
Gag orders are often used against participants involved in a lawsuit or criminal trial. They are also a tool to prevent media from publishing unwanted information on a particular topic. A Criminal Court, for instance, will issue a gag order on the media if the judge believes that potential jurors in a future trial will be influenced by the media reporting or speculation on the early stages of a case. Another example might be to ensure police are not impeded in their investigations by media publicity about a case.
In a similar manner, a 'gag law' is intended to limit freedom of the press, by instituting censorship or restricting access to information.
Examples of gag orders
India
After the 2008 Mumbai attacks in which live streaming of the event was broadcast, the Indian government proposed a draft law that would gag media outlets broadcasting live pictures during a terrorist event or war, to ensure the safety of any hostages and to protect security operations from hindrance. This has been opposed by Indian media who argue that they have adopted 'self-regulation' during such events and refrain from doing so anyway. It is uncertain if the draft law will be passed or not.[1]
Israel
In late 2009 Israel issued a gag order against the Israeli media reporting on facts surrounding the Anat Kamm-Uri Blau affair. The gag order was ultimately subject to widespread criticism and publicity as the details of the case were reported overseas. The scandal centered around leaked documents from the Israeli Defense Force which suggested the military had engaged in extrajudicial killings.[2]
Malaysia
There was speculation that a gag order may be imposed by the MCA on their press statements before they are released to the public to "ensure maximum effectiveness". Such releases would have to be approved by the president.[3] These claims in the media were later denied.[4]
United States
A National Security Letter, an administrative subpoena used by the FBI, has an attached gag order which restricts the recipient from ever saying anything about being served with one.[5] The government has issued hundreds of thousands of such NSLs accompanied with gag orders.[6] The gag orders have been upheld in court.[6]
In the United States, a court can order parties to a case not to comment on it but has no authority to stop unrelated reporters from reporting on a case. Most statutes which restrict what may be reported have generally been found unconstitutional and void. However, the gag provisions of the WIPO Copyright and Performances and Phonograms Treaties Implementation Act have been upheld.
The trials of Guantanamo Bay suspects have also been subjected to a gag order, which has hindered public scrutiny.[7] Likewise, as part of a plea bargain John Walker Lindh consented to a gag order to not talk to the press or others.
United Kingdom
A gag order has been used to protect 'national security'. In the Allan Chappelow murder case, the trial was held mostly in camera and media were prevented from speculating on the case. The order was imposed after a "compelling case" made by prosecutors, despite overwhelming media opposition brought by a le♠gal challenge to the ruling.[8][9][10] This criminal case has been thought to be the first in which a gagging order was imposed.[11]
See also
- DA-Notice
- Editorial independence
- Freedom of speech
- Gag rule
- Media blackout
- Media transparency
- Prior restraint
- Public Interest Immunity
- Temporary restraining order
- Whistleblower
References
- ^ Law readied to gag TV in crises, The Times of India, January 9, 2009.
- ^ "Debate in Israel on Gag Order in Security Leak Case". The New York Times. April 7, 2010. Retrieved June 18, 2010.
- ^ Order To Endorse Press Statements To Maximise Effectiveness, Says Tee Keat, Bernama, January 8, 2009.
- ^ Tee Keat: No gag order on MCA bureau chiefs, The Sun Daily, January 8, 2009.
- ^ ACLU Roadmap of Justice Department Inspector General’s Review of the FBI’s Use of National Security Letters
- ^ a b David Kravets October 20, 2009, Wired, Judge Refuses to Lift 5-Year-Old Patriot Act Gag Order
- ^ Judge's Order Could Keep Public From Hearing Details of 9/11 Trials, Washington Post, January 9, 2009.
- ^ Secrecy ruling over murder trial, BBC News, January 15, 2008.
- ^ Secrets and lies, The Guardian, January 11, 2008.
- ^ Papers fight move to hear trial in secret, The Times, January 14, 2008.
- ^ Why is Home Office trying to stage murder trial in secret?, The Times, December 17, 2007.