This article is from the source 'guardian' and was first published or seen on . It last changed over 40 days ago and won't be checked again for changes.

You can find the current article at its original source at http://www.guardian.co.uk/media/2013/feb/15/oscar-pistorius-media-contempt-libel

The article has changed 2 times. There is an RSS feed of changes available.

Version 0 Version 1
Oscar Pistorius: media unlikely to be in contempt, but could be libellous Oscar Pistorius: media unlikely to be in contempt, but could be libellous
(7 months later)
The coverage of the alleged murder by Oscar Pistorius of Reeva Steenkamp highlights the difficulty of enforcing rights to a fair trial in the age of social media.The coverage of the alleged murder by Oscar Pistorius of Reeva Steenkamp highlights the difficulty of enforcing rights to a fair trial in the age of social media.
No sooner had news of the violent death of Steenkamp and Pistorius's involvement emerged than, depressingly and rather predictably, the jokes started on Twitter.No sooner had news of the violent death of Steenkamp and Pistorius's involvement emerged than, depressingly and rather predictably, the jokes started on Twitter.
Very soon after that though came the speculation about motive: analysis of any defence and examination of previous behaviour by Pistorius. We had , verdict, mitigation and aggravating circumstances all wrapped up in a morning on Twitter.Very soon after that though came the speculation about motive: analysis of any defence and examination of previous behaviour by Pistorius. We had , verdict, mitigation and aggravating circumstances all wrapped up in a morning on Twitter.
This rush to analyse, explain and condemn has consequences for mainstream coverage of such events, as one can see from Friday morning's papers. It is simply not enough to report the terrible event any more: readers need their papers to provide background and context which they will go looking for on the web if they cannot find it in print.This rush to analyse, explain and condemn has consequences for mainstream coverage of such events, as one can see from Friday morning's papers. It is simply not enough to report the terrible event any more: readers need their papers to provide background and context which they will go looking for on the web if they cannot find it in print.
So for example, this morning's Daily Mirror carries an interview with the mother of an ex-girlfriend speaking of her relief that her daughter was out of the relationship. The Sun reports an alleged obsession with guns and previous threatening behaviour and an extraordinary shot-by-shot account of the killing on its front page. The Times and Daily Telegraph detail his supposedly fiery temper and the Daily Mail carries a report about "The Dark Side of the Blade Runner". The Guardian carries a lengthy editorial detailing his "fall", although we are a long way from trial.So for example, this morning's Daily Mirror carries an interview with the mother of an ex-girlfriend speaking of her relief that her daughter was out of the relationship. The Sun reports an alleged obsession with guns and previous threatening behaviour and an extraordinary shot-by-shot account of the killing on its front page. The Times and Daily Telegraph detail his supposedly fiery temper and the Daily Mail carries a report about "The Dark Side of the Blade Runner". The Guardian carries a lengthy editorial detailing his "fall", although we are a long way from trial.
South Africa is a common law jurisdiction like the UK and it has similar contempt laws. The crucial difference is that jury trials were abolished there in 1969 and Pistorius will be tried by a judge alone. This gives publishers and tweeters some reassurance. It has always been assumed that judges, unlike jurors, are above the influence of the media, whether it is on Twitter or in the pages of the papers.South Africa is a common law jurisdiction like the UK and it has similar contempt laws. The crucial difference is that jury trials were abolished there in 1969 and Pistorius will be tried by a judge alone. This gives publishers and tweeters some reassurance. It has always been assumed that judges, unlike jurors, are above the influence of the media, whether it is on Twitter or in the pages of the papers.
So contempt should not be a problem in South Africa. But libel could be – either in South Africa, or possibly the UK. It is worth noting that the UK media's coverage of the disappearance of Madeleine McCann did not stop her parents securing substantial libel damages from a number of news organisations, even though the events they were reporting on took place in Portugal.So contempt should not be a problem in South Africa. But libel could be – either in South Africa, or possibly the UK. It is worth noting that the UK media's coverage of the disappearance of Madeleine McCann did not stop her parents securing substantial libel damages from a number of news organisations, even though the events they were reporting on took place in Portugal.
What if the killing of Steenkamp had happened in the UK, or in any other country with a jury system? Do we believe that Twitter, or the mainstream media would have been any more restrained in their coverage? Perhaps not.What if the killing of Steenkamp had happened in the UK, or in any other country with a jury system? Do we believe that Twitter, or the mainstream media would have been any more restrained in their coverage? Perhaps not.
It would seem now that some crimes transcend the law and trying to control coverage of them is like trying to hold back the tide, an impossibility.It would seem now that some crimes transcend the law and trying to control coverage of them is like trying to hold back the tide, an impossibility.
The Law Commission is currently reviewing the law of contempt in the UK and one of the powers it has suggested would allow judges to order removal of online material. The judge would have to specify which URLs were to be disabled for the duration of a trial.The Law Commission is currently reviewing the law of contempt in the UK and one of the powers it has suggested would allow judges to order removal of online material. The judge would have to specify which URLs were to be disabled for the duration of a trial.
Imagine if one tried to track down the prejudicial URLs circulating about Pistorius? It would be an impossible task.Imagine if one tried to track down the prejudicial URLs circulating about Pistorius? It would be an impossible task.
The Pistorius case shows the difficulty in a balancing the right to a fair trial with the sort of freedom of expression allowed by global social media, especially where the defendant, or victim, is a world-famous figure.The Pistorius case shows the difficulty in a balancing the right to a fair trial with the sort of freedom of expression allowed by global social media, especially where the defendant, or victim, is a world-famous figure.
David Banks is a journalist and media law consultantDavid Banks is a journalist and media law consultant
Our editors' picks for the day's top news and commentary delivered to your inbox each morning.