My friend Dave Traynor is right about this issue. In The Daily Upload, he argues that a publication ban on the Gomery Inquiry evidence won't work, because it's just too easy for people to click on a search engine and find reports on the testimony that is under a ban.
The potential for jurors to have a partial report on what was said at the inquiry is pretty good, given the huge number of people for whom this is an all-consuming story. And the reports I've seen aren't as well written and authoritative as the media reports before them.
So paradoxically, the ban makes it more likely that people know a few facts and rumours about what's being said, instead of a full report. If the aim of the ban is to protect people who testify at the inquiry from an unfair trial, it doesn't look like it's working. I had a flood of visitors click onto my web log today, and I bet most of them weren't looking for my trenchant analysis.
Update: Gomery: Bloggers Flex their Muscles
I Got Gomeried
Previous posts: Top Story Switches to Gomery Media Ban
Agency Billings Probed in Sponsorship Scandal
Comments