The Full Wiki

Gag order: Wikis

Advertisements
  
  

Note: Many of our articles have direct quotes from sources you can cite, within the Wikipedia article! This article doesn't yet, but we're working on it! See more info or our list of citable articles.

Encyclopedia

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

A gag order - commonly known in the UK as a gagging order - (or suppression order) is an order, sometimes a legal order by a court or government, other times a private order by an employer or other institution, restricting information or comment from being made public.

Gag orders are often used against participants involved in a lawsuit or criminal trial. They are also a tool to prevent media from publishing unwanted information on a particular topic. A Criminal Court, for instance, will issue a gag order on the media if the judge believes that potential jurors in a future trial will be influenced by the media reporting or speculation on the early stages of a case. Another example might be to ensure police are not impeded in their investigations by media publicity about a case.

In a similar manner, a gag law is intended to limit freedom of the press, as by instituting censorship or restricting access to information.

Contents

Super-injunction

In the England and Wales a new form of injunction known as a "super-injunction" is a form of gagging order in which the press is prohibited from reporting even the existence of the injunction, or any details of it.[1] An example was the super-injunction raised in September 2009 by Carter-Ruck solicitors on behalf of oil trader Trafigura, prohibiting the reporting of an internal Trafigura report into the 2006 Côte d'Ivoire toxic waste dump scandal. The existence of the super-injunction was only revealed when it was referred to in a parliamentary question, which was circulated on the internet, leading to the injunction being varied (before it could be challenged in court) to permit reporting of the question. By long legal tradition, parliamentary proceedings may be reported without restriction.[2]Parliamentary proceedings are only covered by qualified privilege.

Examples of gag orders

Advertisements

India

After the 2008 Mumbai attacks in which live streaming of the event was broadcast, the Indian government proposed a draft law that would gag media outlets broadcasting live pictures during a terrorist event or war, to ensure the safety of any hostages and to protect security operations from hindrance. This has been opposed by Indian media who argue that they have adopted 'self-regulation' during such events and refrain from doing so anyway. It is uncertain if the draft law will be passed or not.[3]

Malaysia

There was speculation that a gag order may be imposed by the MCA on their press statements before they are released to the public to "ensure maximum effectiveness". Such releases would have to be approved by the president.[4] These claims in the media were later denied.[5]

United States

A National Security Letter, an administrative subpoena used by the FBI, has an attached gag order which restricts the recipient from ever saying anything about being served with one.[6] The government has issued hundreds of thousands of such NSLs accompanied with gag orders.[7] The gag orders have been upheld in court.[7]

In the United States, a court can only order parties to a case not to comment on it; a court has no authority to stop unrelated reporters from reporting on a case. Most statutes which restrict what may be reported have generally been found unconstitutional and void. However, the gag provisions of the WIPO Copyright and Performances and Phonograms Treaties Implementation Act have been upheld.

The trials of Guantanamo Bay suspects have also been subjected to a gag order, which has hindered public scrutiny.[8] Likewise, as part of a plea bargain John Walker Lindh consented to a gag order to not talk to the press or others.

United Kingdom

A gag order has been used to protect 'national security'. In the Allan Chappelow murder case, the trial was held mostly in camera and media were prevented from speculating on the case. The order was imposed after a "compelling case" made by prosecutors, despite overwhelming media opposition brought by a legal challenge to the ruling.[9][10][11] This criminal case has been thought to be the first in which a gagging order was imposed.[12]

See also

References


Advertisements






Got something to say? Make a comment.
Your name
Your email address
Message