tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3240411348226090310.post6400597117381575134..comments2024-01-15T08:24:32.546+00:00Comments on Judith's Divorce Blog: UNDER THE SCRUTINY OF THE MEDIAJudithhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/01754552577833848484noreply@blogger.comBlogger2125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3240411348226090310.post-39858761461388455602009-04-28T13:33:00.000+01:002009-04-28T13:33:00.000+01:00Now I know that the UK is often referred to as the...Now I know that the UK is often referred to as the 51st state but no we definitely haven't adopted the First Amendment. Good grief it took us until 1998 to pass a Human Rights Act!<br />Implications simply are that to date most family proceedings have been conducted in private and whilst the public are still not to be permitted entry, accredited members of the Press are. Somewhat of a change, you might say.Judithhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01754552577833848484noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3240411348226090310.post-47943475183304009562009-04-28T03:47:00.000+01:002009-04-28T03:47:00.000+01:00Guess I am slightly confused by this new rule. In ...Guess I am slightly confused by this new rule. In New York, for example, there is no media ban per se. The media does not usually report on non-newsworthy cases and often cases are anonymized, but the First Amendment concerns and the public's right to transparency in the courts have been over-riding concerns and so I am not aware of a media ban in the U.S. (Actually parties often fight to keep records sealed) So, I guess, in trying to understand this British rule, my first question would be, do you have a "First Amendment"...sorry but I am slightly confused about this development in your family law courts. What is the real implication of this rule?<br /><br />Divorce SaloonDivorce Saloonhttp://www.divorcesaloon.comnoreply@blogger.com