Greater Than
Retired Moderator
- Joined
- Apr 14, 2014
- Messages
- 3,948
- Reaction score
- 73
BIB - Here's the problem with that IMO:
Prior to the media application ruling, OP's media management team set up the twitter account @OscarHardTruth to share factual information about the trial. Because the public would be receiving secondhand updates and/or tweets from journalists inside the courtroom, they wanted to ensure unbiased facts would be relayed by providing them themselves.
http://www.citypress.co.za/news/oscar-pistorius-team-sets-twitter-account/
There was public controversy regarding the motives of that twitter account, to which OP's media manager stated:
Then, although the DT opposed it, Judge Mlambo approved the media application referring to SA's constitution in regards to freedom of the press and the principle of open justice which requires that a trial be conducted in open public. He addressed the witnesses' right to privacy by placing certain restrictions on the order (not to be on camera if they opposed) and covered all bases by including the provision that the presiding judge (Masipa) had the right to halt the audio/audio-visual broadcasting if concerns were raised. After the ruling, media reported:
The DT did not appeal, and trial began one week later with cameras rolling.
Two weeks into the trial, OP's media manager released a statement on OP's official website:
So, while the DT did publicly oppose the media application to broadcast, they did not appeal the ruling. Further, OP's media management team, who represents and speaks for OP and his family, appeared to be very pleased that the public would not have to rely on secondhand updates, even from OP's own team, as it would be televised live for us all to view and hear for ourselves. And finally, there was a provision in the media order that allowed for milady to restrict broadcasting of certain witnesses, but the DT did not request that she do so.
An appeal of the verdict will undoubtedly include the broadcasting of the trial, but based on the above, I just don't see how it won't be rejected by either Masipa or the Supreme Court of Appeal.
MOO
