Comments:UK's most-read papers found to be in contempt of court

In the U.S., such a prosecution would be clearly unconstitutional, due to the First Amendment. As far as I know, the U.S. concept of contempt of court applies only to people with direct involvement of some sort in a case, such as parties to the case, their attorneys, people present in the courtroom for some reason, and those who have received and disobeyed direct court orders. There isn't any sort of blanket contempt rule applying to random third-parties such as journalists. Trying to keep tight control of what is published on the Internet seems to be a losing cause, something that even dictators like those in China and Libya have only partial success at. Dtobias (talk) 22:49, 6 March 2011 (UTC)
 * FYI, China is not a dictatorship although its legal system - which has only started developing for a few decades - has room for improvement. Kayau (talk &middot; contribs) 16:00, 7 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Yeah in the UK (and the rest of Europe incidently) the rights of free speech come with certain responsibilities, and these responsibilities are felt to be greater when the author knows he is writing to a wide audience who consider him to be a reliable source, so I don't think the same ruling would have been made if the defendant was say a blogger. What is interesting is that if the Mail and Sun do believe free speech is an issue here they will have to pursue it using the  and  and since theyve spent the last ten years aggressively campaigning against both I have a feeling a U-turn might be coming up which may actually be visible from space Bob House 884 (talk) 20:14, 7 March 2011 (UTC)