6 ms·

Don't you think that if it's in the name of the people that the people should have the right to know? Aren't trials public anyway?

jampekka 1y ago
If you are interested, you can go to the court to watch the proceedings or get the documents.
- xvokcarts 1y ago
  OK. How am I then not allowed to post here what happened in the court?
  - jampekka 1y ago
    You are allowed to post what happened in the court. You are also allowed to share names and even video to at least a limited audience.
    - xvokcarts 1y ago
      OK, so like on my X account where I publish names of people on trial.
      - jampekka 1y ago
        That depends on the case and for what purpose the names are published. But I'd say usually there will be no legal ramifications. What is the purpose for publishing the named?
  - rollcat 1y ago
    IANAL, but in general, doxxing people is just a really mean thing to do. Convicted criminal? Sure, write a story. In the most hopeful case, the sentence they serve will help reintegrate them with society - even then, it's good to know who you're dealing with. Proven innocent? Lawful or not, you're now carrying the weight of possibly ruining someone's life even further. Sleep on that.
    - seabass-labrax 1y ago
      In the UK, a story is legally considered libellous if it's written in a way that could harm its subject, even if the facts are true. That means it would be a tort against the convicted criminal to name them if it wouldn't be in the public interest to do so.
      - mytailorisrich 1y ago
        Libel strictly implies false statement and it is a full defence to show that the statement is true: "It is a defence to an action for defamation for the defendant to show that the imputation conveyed by the statement complained of is substantially true." [1] That has to be the case otherwise it would be unlawful to say or publish anything negative about someone! Public interest defence applies when the statement published was false. Note that convicted criminals are always publicly named unless the court forbids it. In that latter case naming the person would still not be libel but contempt of court (which potentially means jail). [1] https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2013/26 https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2013/26
    - jampekka 1y ago
      > Convicted criminal? Sure, write a story. In the most hopeful case, the sentence they serve will help reintegrate them with society - even then, it's good to know who you're dealing with. Even this is somewhat problematic. There seems to be a widespread idea that "criminality" is somehow an integral feature of some (un)people for whom almost anything goes, their lives being ruined is of no concern (not saying you imply these), and it's crucial to know who have this feature. Something like this was actually a phrenologically motivated "scientific" view in the 19th century most famously by Lombroso's phrenological and eugenical "theory", but other "biological theories of criminality" are still around. It's not that such views are necessarily widely held, but it was the backdrop of the development of much of criminal policy. The distorted view of crime and the tragedies it causes for both "innocent" and "criminal" is really sad. Note: I'm not really arguing against you rollcat here or attributing this thinking to you. Just something tangentially related.
      - 1y ago

jampekka 1y ago

If you are interested, you can go to the court to watch the proceedings or get the documents.

xvokcarts 1y ago
OK. How am I then not allowed to post here what happened in the court?
- jampekka 1y ago
  You are allowed to post what happened in the court. You are also allowed to share names and even video to at least a limited audience.
  - xvokcarts 1y ago
    OK, so like on my X account where I publish names of people on trial.
    - jampekka 1y ago
      That depends on the case and for what purpose the names are published. But I'd say usually there will be no legal ramifications. What is the purpose for publishing the named?
- rollcat 1y ago
  IANAL, but in general, doxxing people is just a really mean thing to do. Convicted criminal? Sure, write a story. In the most hopeful case, the sentence they serve will help reintegrate them with society - even then, it's good to know who you're dealing with. Proven innocent? Lawful or not, you're now carrying the weight of possibly ruining someone's life even further. Sleep on that.
  - seabass-labrax 1y ago
    In the UK, a story is legally considered libellous if it's written in a way that could harm its subject, even if the facts are true. That means it would be a tort against the convicted criminal to name them if it wouldn't be in the public interest to do so.
    - mytailorisrich 1y ago
      Libel strictly implies false statement and it is a full defence to show that the statement is true: "It is a defence to an action for defamation for the defendant to show that the imputation conveyed by the statement complained of is substantially true." [1] That has to be the case otherwise it would be unlawful to say or publish anything negative about someone! Public interest defence applies when the statement published was false. Note that convicted criminals are always publicly named unless the court forbids it. In that latter case naming the person would still not be libel but contempt of court (which potentially means jail). [1] https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2013/26 https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2013/26
  - jampekka 1y ago
    > Convicted criminal? Sure, write a story. In the most hopeful case, the sentence they serve will help reintegrate them with society - even then, it's good to know who you're dealing with. Even this is somewhat problematic. There seems to be a widespread idea that "criminality" is somehow an integral feature of some (un)people for whom almost anything goes, their lives being ruined is of no concern (not saying you imply these), and it's crucial to know who have this feature. Something like this was actually a phrenologically motivated "scientific" view in the 19th century most famously by Lombroso's phrenological and eugenical "theory", but other "biological theories of criminality" are still around. It's not that such views are necessarily widely held, but it was the backdrop of the development of much of criminal policy. The distorted view of crime and the tragedies it causes for both "innocent" and "criminal" is really sad. Note: I'm not really arguing against you rollcat here or attributing this thinking to you. Just something tangentially related.
    - 1y ago