@Eshu:
"A single contempt of court conviction is enough to warrant jail time under U.K. law. This was his charge, and why he was arrested and jailed. Legally, his prior suspended sentence/court order has nothing to do with whether it is a jailable offense to document that a trial is taking place, but you seem to be claiming that this is necessarily the case"
You seem to be having a problem with both the English language and the English and Welsh Legal System. I made a clear distinction between the
reasons for Robinson's arrest [breaching the
conditions of his suspended sentence] and
his conviction for contempt of court [breaching the specific court order regarding reporting of the case].
Your repeated assertion that Robinson was
"arrested and jailed" for the secondary contempt of court conviction is incorrect regarding the facts and misunderstands the law and the judicial process.
There is a very good reason for that, in my view. You keep interpolating the US Justice System into the processes of the English and Welsh System. Thereby, you end op confusing yourself and misleading many members of these forums.
It is also perfectly possible for somebody to be found guilty of a single contempt of court conviction and end up in jail. During sentencing, the court is able to (properly) take into account the conditions that were imposed on the guilty individual from a previous conviction. Given that Robinson had clearly breached the
conditions of his suspended sentence from a previous conviction, the court considered a custodial sentence (i.e. jail) was appropriate.
Nevertheless, you did get me to correct the use of words in some of my posts, for which I'm grateful. It also helps other members of these forums understand the processes behind Tommy Robinson's news story.
@Eshu:
"In the context of restricting speech--which is what we're discussing--the standard in the U.S. is initiation of harm; in the U.K., it is the whim of the court, as evidenced by how they issue the gag orders I cited previously. In the U.S., a court cannot legally restrict your speech unless it meets rigorous standards for demonstrating some kind of harm; in the U.K., a court can restrict speech (in the context of how a trial is covered, for example) for such whims as perceiving that even the potential for harm might exist. This is a fundamentally different approach to the concept of the right to speech."
We were discussing free speech in relation to Robinson's broadcast that got him convicted for contempt of court, surely !?
I was comparing Robinson's free speech with the need to ensure a fair trial and not impede the administration of justice. Therefore, I correctly pointed out to you that free speech is restricted in order to allow a legal process to be completed. The underlying principle is called
sub judice.
I also showed you how the US, EU and UK legal systems approach the issues in similar ways.
So your assertion that the UK (similar to the US and EU) restricts free speech in a
sub judice matter on "whims" is just incorrect. There are rigorous tests in place to protect formal legal processes in all three jurisdictions. In none of these jurisdictions do the free speech rights of the individual trump the integrity and fairness of a formal legal process. Not even your view that free speech in the US pivots on (demonstrable) harm to the individual is accurate.
@Eshu:
"The laws surrounding the specific charge of contempt of court in the U.S. and the U.K. are also different in specific ways. In the U.K., it falls under the Contempt of Court Act of 1981 that one cannot film/record any aspect of a court proceeding. As I understand it, this is what Robinson was arrested for both times, and ultimately jailed for."
If you'll permit me, I want to correct you and clarify the process in simple terms:
The second time Robinson was arrested (in rude haste, if you remember!?) was because he breached the
conditions of his suspended sentence.
The second charge of contempt of court followed when he was in custody. He was tried on this second charge and found guilty. In sentencing, the court took account of the fact that Robinson had breached the
conditions of his suspended sentence from the first conviction for contempt of court, which, the court was entitled to do under the current law.
There really isn't anything to argue over, here.
@Eshu:
"Also, for all you know, I'm from the U.K. and live in Southampton. You shouldn't assume someone's nationality simply because you dislike your arguments being demonstrated as factually incorrect."
You'll excuse me for placing you at the wrong end of 'the pond'!?
Understandable, considering the brazen way you sailed into the discussion by comparing the English and Welsh Legal System with the US and without making references to the way the law is set out in the UK.
And I'm not clear how you've demonstrated my arguments as
"factually incorrect" ... !?
I have just clarified the legal process in Robinson's case, sequenced the factual events and even had to put up with all your ramblings about the US Constitution's attitude towards free speech (and had to correct you on how the US Justice System approaches contempt of court matters). I can only assume you have a febrile imagination that results in you spending time arguing with yourself !?