Gag order

Last updated

A gag order (also known as a gagging order or suppression order) is an order, typically a legal order by a court or government, restricting information or comment from being made public or passed onto any unauthorized third party. The phrase may sometimes be used of a private order by an employer or other institution.

Contents

Uses of gag orders include keeping trade secrets of a company, protecting the integrity of ongoing police or military operations, and protecting the privacy of victims or minors. Conversely, as their downside, they may be abused as a useful tool for those of financial means to intimidate witnesses and prevent release of information, using the legal system rather than other methods of intimidation. Strategic lawsuit against public participation (SLAPP) orders may potentially be abused in this way. [1] [2]

Gag orders are sometimes used in an attempt to assure a fair trial by preventing prejudicial pre-trial publicity, although their use for this purpose is controversial since they are a potentially unconstitutional prior restraint that can lead to the press's using less reliable sources such as off-the-record statements and second- or third-hand accounts. [3]

In a similar manner, a "gag law" may limit freedom of the press, by instituting censorship or restricting access to information. [4]

Examples

Australia

In the summer of 2014, WikiLeaks revealed the existence of an Australia-wide gagging order, issued 19 June by the Supreme Court of Victoria, to block reporting of bribery allegations involving several international political leaders in the region. [5]

In December 2018, International news sources have reported that Cardinal George Pell's conviction on child-molestation charges is subject to a gag order issued by Victoria, Australia court Judge Peter Kidd, suppressing coverage of the conviction by Australian media companies. [6] [7] [8] [9] In early February 2019, Victoria's DPP, Kerri Judd QC, wrote to around 50 Australian news publishers, editors, broadcasters, reporters and subeditors, accusing them of breaking the gag order. Kidd told a closed court that some of the breaches were serious and editors faced jail. [10]

Brazil

In 2019, the Brazilian Ministry of Environment imposed a gag order on environmental enforcement agency Ibama, ordering it not to respond to press inquiries and to instead redirect them to the ministry’s communications office. Ibama's head of communications was forced to resign after weeks of defying the ministry's directive to reroute press queries. [11]

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. [12]

Israel

In late 2009, Israel issued a gag order against the Israeli media reporting on facts surrounding the Anat Kamm–Uri Blau affair. The gag order was ultimately subject to widespread criticism and publicity as the details of the case were reported overseas. The scandal centered around leaked documents from the Israeli Defense Force which suggested the military had engaged in extrajudicial killings. [13]

A gag order concerning the Prisoner X affair prevented Israeli coverage of the topic for more than two years. After numerous foreign media outlets revealed the prisoner's identity and other key facts in February 2013, a court partially lifted the gag order, allowing Israeli media to quote foreign press reports but offer no original reporting. [14]

On 13 November 2013 a gag order concerning a famous Israeli singer suspected of sex with girls below the age of consent was issued. While the traditional media did not advertise the name of the singer, social media platforms users like Facebook published the singer name and incriminating photos. On 20 November Eyal Golan released a press statement announcing he was the suspected singer. [15]

In 2014, a blanket gag order regarding the detainment of Avera Mengitsu was put into place. It lasted 10 months, until July 9, 2015. Discussions took place in social media forums and some reports were published on foreign websites. [16] Some clues about the affair were leaked to different Arabic media outlets, from which the story made its way to international media and was published to Tikun Olam by blogger Richard Silverstein. [17] The gag order was lifted following a request from Haaretz . [16] The Associated Press speculated that a statement made by Khaled Mashaal the previous day, in which he spoke of an Israeli request through a European intermediary for the release of "two soldiers and two bodies", may have "forced Israel's hand". [18]

In August 2017, Israeli court issued a month-old gag order on a state witness deal regarding the ongoing criminal investigations of the Prime Minister, Benjamin Netanyahu.

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. [19] These claims in the media were later denied. [20]

Myanmar

In October 2021, the top attorney for Myanmar's deposed leader Aung San Suu Kyi claimed that Burmese authorities had issued him a gag order barring him from discussing Aung San Suu Kyi's court proceedings in public because they believed such communications could spark unrest. [21]

New Zealand

In New Zealand, name suppression is the commonly used term for a court order preventing the publication of a name or details of a criminal case. [22] The rules for name suppression are laid out in the Criminal Procedure Act 2011. [23] Name suppression can be granted automatically for several reasons, including to protect the identities of victims of sex crimes or to protect the identity of children under the age of 17. Name suppression can also be granted at the discretion of the court. Defendants frequently receive name suppression in New Zealand. [24] Often this is due to the court determining that media coverage could cause undue hardship to a defendant, or could prejudice the defendant's right to a fair trial. [25] Name suppression orders can be (and frequently are) opposed, often by media outlets. Victims of crime can waive their automatic name suppression rights, in order to lift name suppression on the defendant, though this is uncommon. [26]

Breaching a name suppression order brings a penalty of up to 6 months in prison for individuals, or fines of up to NZ$ 100,000 for organisations. [25]

Some high profile cases have seen breaches of name suppression orders in New Zealand. In 2010, right-wing blogger and vocal critic of name suppression rules Cameron Slater was convicted of breaching name suppression orders and fined NZ$8,000. [27] Later, Slater himself benefited from name suppression when charged with attempting to hack a competing political website. [28]

The defendant in the murder of Grace Millane was granted name suppression during trial, but media outlets covering the case in the United Kingdom published his name, as they were not subject to New Zealand law. This resulted in his name being commonly available online in New Zealand, including being emailed to Google News subscribers within New Zealand. [29] Auckland businessman Leo Molloy was convicted of breaching name suppression in the case when he posted the defendant's name on a web forum. He was fined NZ$15,000 and sentenced to 350 hours of community service. [30]

In August 2023 Te Pāti Māori coleader Rawiri Waititi made a direct reference to a suppressed case in parliament. [31] [32] Despite details of the case being suppressed from publication by the courts, Waititi's speech was protected by parliamentary privilege. He was later suspended from parliament for breaching standing orders. [33]

Name suppression laws in New Zealand have been controversial since they were first introduced in the early 20th century, [24] and specific suppression orders are also sometimes highly controversial. [34] Critics point to the legislation being used to protect the identities of well-known figures when they are accused of crime, [35] [36] and that suppressing details from publication conflicts with the principle of open justice. [24] The internet has introduced new challenges with the enforcement of name suppression orders. [36] The New Zealand Bar Association has defended name suppression laws as an important tool for balancing the principles of open justice against fair trial rights. [37]

Nigeria

In July 2021, the National Broadcasting Commission issued a gag order barring all journalists and broadcast stations in the country from reporting details of terrorists, kidnappers, and victims. [38] After unsuccessfully calling for the gag order's withdrawal, the Socio-Economic Rights and Accountability Project (SERAP) and the Centre for Journalism Innovation and Development (PTCIJ) filed a lawsuit against President Muhammadu Buhari and Minister of Information and Culture Lai Mohammed, with National Broadcasting Commission also named as a defendant. The plaintiffs asked the court to “declare illegal the gag order" and to compel the defendants to withdraw the directive, arguing that it was "inconsistent and incompatible with sections 22 and 39 of the Nigerian Constitution, Article 9 of the African Charter on Human and Peoples’ Rights and Article 19 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights". [39]

United Kingdom

A gag order, or anonymity order, is sometimes issued by courts in the United Kingdom to protect privacy, prevent harm to suspects, prisoners, [40] witnesses, victims, or to protect national security. [41] 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. [42] [43] [44] This criminal case has been thought to be the first in which a gagging order was imposed. [45]

In 2011, gagging orders that applied to themselves, or "super-injunctions" as they were called, were being referred to almost daily in the United Kingdom after a number of high-profile public figures, including celebrities and politicians, censored the British media from revealing information about their personal lives, such as affairs [46] and dealings with prostitutes.

Gag orders protecting the privacy of convicted child murderers such as Mary Bell, Jon Venables and David McGreavy, in order to protect them from revenge attacks, have also been controversial because of public concerns about the inability to avoid such persons and protect victims' families and other children from being harmed by them. [40] [47]

The Netherlands

In The Netherlands, ethologist Gerrit van Putten was given two separate gag orders by the Minister of Agriculture to protect intensive farming. The first gag order was issued after Van Putten had published a report on tail biting in pigs in 1972, and had advocated that the pig's tail is a thermometer of animal welfare, which was discarded when the "temperature" became too high, i.e. the tails were docked rather than that housing conditions were improved. The second gag order was issued in 1989 by Minister Braks, who did not want to hear about the adverse effects of confined housing of pigs. [48] [49] [50]

In 2015, a Dutch court issued a gag order on writer Edwin Giltay, banning his non-fiction thriller The Cover-up General and prohibiting him to promote it. The suppression order denied Edwin Giltay to disclose the contents of the book, which delineates an espionage scandal within Dutch military intelligence that he witnessed first-hand, about obscuring evidence of war crimes in Srebrenica. [51] [52] [53] In 2016, the Court of Appeal in The Hague revoked the gag order and the book ban. [54]

United States

A national security letter (18 U.S.C.   § 2709), 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. [55] The government has issued hundreds of thousands of such NSLs accompanied with gag orders. The gag orders have been upheld in court. [56]

Suspicious activity reports (31 U.S.C.   § 5318(g)(2); the Housing and Community Development Act of 1992 / Annunzio-Wylie Anti-Money Laundering Act, Pub. L.   102–550, § 1517(b), 106  Stat.   4060) require that "If a financial institution or any director, officer, employee, or agent of any financial institution [...] reports a suspicious transaction to a government agency—neither the financial institution, director, officer, employee, or agent of such institution (whether or not any such person is still employed by the institution) [...] may notify any person involved in the transaction that the transaction has been reported; and no current or former officer or employee of or contractor for the Federal Government or of or for any State, local, tribal, or territorial government within the United States, who has any knowledge that such report was made may disclose to any person involved in the transaction that the transaction has been reported".[ non-primary source needed ]

18 U.S.C.   § 2705(b) (the Electronic Communications Privacy Act of 1986 / Stored Communications Act) also provides for gag orders which direct the recipient of a 18 U.S.C.   § 2703(d) order to refrain from disclosing the existence of the order or the investigation. [57] [ non-primary source needed ]

18 U.S.C.   § 3123(d)(2) (the Electronic Communications Privacy Act of 1986) also provides for gag orders which direct the recipient of a pen register or trap and trace device order not to disclose the existence of the pen/trap or the investigation. [58]

In the United States, a court can order parties to a case not to comment on it but has no authority to stop unrelated reporters from reporting on a case. Thus, information concerning a case is often leaked to the media, and the media often chooses to publicly report this leaked information after receiving it. 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. [59] Likewise, as part of a plea bargain, John Walker Lindh consented to a gag order to not talk to the press or others. Also, Judge Howard Shore from San Diego put a gag order on activist Jeff Olson. [60]

Gag orders can be part of a settlement agreement between two parties. In the state of Pennsylvania in 2011, a lifetime gag order on the discussion of fracking was agreed to by a family as part of their agreement with the oil and gas drilling company Range Resources. An attorney for Range Resources claimed in court that the gag order covered not only the adults in the family, but also the children, then aged seven and ten years old, and that the company intended to enforce it. [61] [nb 1]

Some U.S. states, the first of which was Florida, have enacted so-called "physician gag laws" limiting doctors' ability to ask about a patient's gun ownership. [4]

California

In 2017, California enacted the California Electronic Communications Privacy Act, adjusting California Penal Code 1546, including Section 1546.2 (b) (1), a provision which allows that in certain cases, a court can issue "an order delaying notification and prohibiting any party providing information from notifying any other party" that an electronic search warrant has been requested by a government entity. [63]

Puerto Rico

On 21 May 1948, a bill was introduced before the Puerto Rican Senate which would restrain the rights of the independence and Nationalist movements on the archipelago, which was a colony of the United States at the time. The Senate, controlled by the Partido Popular Democrático (PPD), approved the bill that day. [64] This bill, which resembled the anti-communist Smith Act passed in the United States in 1940, became known as the Ley de la Mordaza (Gag Law, technically "Law 53 of 1948") when the U.S.-appointed governor of Puerto Rico, Jesús T. Piñero, signed it into law on 10 June 1948. [65]

Under this new law it became a crime to print, publish, sell, or exhibit any material intended to paralyze or destroy the insular government; or to organize any society, group or assembly of people with a similar destructive intent. It made it illegal to sing a patriotic song, and reinforced the 1898 law that had made it illegal to display the Flag of Puerto Rico, with anyone found guilty of disobeying the law in any way being subject to a sentence of up to ten years imprisonment, a fine of up to US$10,000 (equivalent to $127,000in 2023), or both. According to Leopoldo Figueroa, the lone non-PPD member of the Puerto Rico House of Representatives, Law 53 was repressive and was in violation of the First Amendment of the US Constitution which guarantees Freedom of Speech. He pointed out that the law as such was a violation of the civil rights of the people of Puerto Rico. [66]

Venezuela

The Inter-American Commission on Human Rights and the Inter-American Press Association (IAPA), as well as the Venezuelan opposition, have considered the Law on Social Responsibility on Radio and Television as a gag law that violates freedom of the press and the exercise of journalism in Venezuela. [67] [68]

See also

Notes

  1. ↑ After court records were unsealed and the settlement was reported in the press, the chief counsel for Range Resources denied that the gag order applied to the children. In a letter to the family's attorney, he wrote, "Range has never, at any time, had the intention of seeking to hold a minor child legally accountable for a breach of that provision of the settlement agreement." [62]

Related Research Articles

Contempt of court, often referred to simply as "contempt", is the crime of being disobedient to or disrespectful toward a court of law and its officers in the form of behavior that opposes or defies the authority, justice, and dignity of the court. A similar attitude toward a legislative body is termed contempt of Parliament or contempt of Congress. The verb for "to commit contempt" is contemn and a person guilty of this is a contemnor or contemner.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Injunction</span> Legal order to stop doing something

An injunction is an equitable remedy in the form of a special court order that compels a party to do or refrain from specific acts. "When a court employs the extraordinary remedy of injunction, it directs the conduct of a party, and does so with the backing of its full coercive powers." A party that fails to comply with an injunction faces criminal or civil penalties, including possible monetary sanctions and even imprisonment. They can also be charged with contempt of court.

In law, a judgment is a decision of a court regarding the rights and liabilities of parties in a legal action or proceeding. Judgments also generally provide the court's explanation of why it has chosen to make a particular court order.

Certain subject-matter in Australia is subject to various forms of government censorship. These include matters of national security, judicial non-publication or suppression orders, defamation law, the federal Racial Discrimination Act 1975 (Cth), film and literature classification, and advertising restrictions.

Prior restraint is censorship imposed, usually by a government or institution, on expression, that prohibits particular instances of expression. It is in contrast to censorship that establishes general subject matter restrictions and reviews a particular instance of expression only after the expression has taken place.

A rape shield law is a law that limits the ability to introduce evidence about the past sexual activity of a complainant in a sexual assault trial, or that limits cross-examination of complainants about their past sexual behaviour in sexual assault cases. The term also refers to a law that prohibits the publication of the identity of a complainant in a sexual assault case.

Nebraska Press Association v. Stuart, 427 U.S. 539 (1976), was a landmark Supreme Court of the United States decision in which the Court held unconstitutional prior restraints on media coverage during criminal trials.

Censorship in Israel is officially carried out by the Israeli Military Censor, a unit in the Israeli government officially tasked with carrying out preventive censorship regarding the publication of information that might affect the security of Israel. The body is headed by the Israeli Chief Censor, a military official appointed by Israel's Minister of Defense, who bestows upon the Chief Censor the authority to suppress information he deems compromising from being made public in the media, such as Israel's nuclear weapons program and Israel's military operations outside its borders. On average, 2240 press articles in Israel are censored by the Israeli Military Censor each year, approximately 240 of which in full, and around 2000 partially.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">2007 New Zealand police raids</span> Series of armed NZ police raids

The 2007 New Zealand police raids were a series of armed police raids conducted on 15 and 16 October 2007, in response to alleged paramilitary training camps in the Urewera mountain range near the town of Ruatoki. About 300 police, including members of the Armed Offenders Squad and Special Tactics Group, were involved in the raids, which involved the execution of search warrants at various addresses throughout New Zealand, and the establishment of roadblocks at Ruatoki and Tāneatua. The police seized four guns and 230 rounds of ammunition and arrested eighteen people. According to police, the raids were a culmination of more than a year of surveillance that uncovered and monitored the training camps.

Cameron Slater is a right-wing New Zealand-based blogger, best known for his role in Dirty Politics and publishing the Whale Oil Beef Hooked blog, which operated from 2005 until it closed in 2019. He edited the tabloid newspaper New Zealand Truth from November 2012 until it ceased publication in July 2013. Following the closure of WhaleOil in 2019, Slater launched a new political blog called the BFD, which was succeeded by The Good Oil in July 2024.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Human rights in New Zealand</span>

Human rights in New Zealand are addressed in the various documents which make up the constitution of the country. Specifically, the two main laws which protect human rights are the New Zealand Human Rights Act 1993 and the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act 1990. In addition, New Zealand has also ratified numerous international United Nations treaties. The 2009 Human Rights Report by the United States Department of State noted that the government generally respected the rights of individuals, but voiced concerns regarding the social status of the indigenous population.

<i>CTB v News Group Newspapers Ltd</i> UK legal case

CTB v News Group Newspapers is an English legal case between Manchester United player Ryan Giggs, given the pseudonym CTB, and defendants News Group Newspapers Limited and model Imogen Thomas.

In English tort law, a super-injunction is a type of injunction that prevents publication of information that is in issue and also prevents the reporting of the fact that the injunction exists at all. The term was coined by a Guardian journalist covering the 2006 Ivory Coast toxic waste dump controversy that had resulted in Trafigura obtaining a controversial injunction. Due to their very nature media organisations are not able to report who has obtained a super-injunction without being in contempt of court.

New Zealand is committed to the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and has ratified the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, both of which contain a right to privacy. Privacy law in New Zealand is dealt with by statute and the common law. The Privacy Act 2020 addresses the collection, storage and handling of information. A general right to privacy has otherwise been created in the tort of privacy. Such a right was recognised in Hosking v Runting [2003] 3 NZLR 385, a case that dealt with publication of private facts. In the subsequent case C v Holland [2012] NZHC 2155 the Court recognised a right to privacy in the sense of seclusion or a right to be free from unwanted intrusion.

<i>United States v. Graham</i>

United States v. Graham, 846 F. Supp. 2d 384, was a Maryland District Court case in which the Court held that historical cell site location data is not protected by the Fourth Amendment. Reacting to the precedent established by the recent Supreme Court case United States v. Jones in conjunction with the application of the third party doctrine, Judge Richard D. Bennett found that "information voluntarily disclosed to a third party ceases to enjoy Fourth Amendment protection" because that information no longer belongs to the consumer, but rather to the telecommunications company that handles the transmissions records. The historical cell site location data is then not subject to the privacy protections afforded by the Fourth Amendment standard of probable cause, but rather to the Stored Communications Act, which governs the voluntary or compelled disclosure of stored electronic communications records.

The Office of the Privacy Commissioner administers the Privacy Act 2020. The Privacy Commissioner is entrusted to protect personal information of New Zealanders in accordance with the Privacy Act. Current Privacy Commissioner, Michael Webster, began his role in July 2022.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Queenstown suppressed indecency case</span> Sexual assault case by a New Zealand celebrity, 2011–2014

The Queenstown suppressed indecency case was a police investigation and court case in New Zealand from 2011 to 2014 in which a celebrity was accused of, pleaded guilty to and was convicted of "performing an indecent act intended to insult or offend" against a woman in Queenstown and later discharged without conviction and given permanent name suppression. The case fuelled discussion and controversy in New Zealand over the use by courts of suppression orders to protect the identity of perpetrators of higher social status.

Antony "Tony" Shaw is a barrister of the High Court of New Zealand, and a former lecturer of law at Victoria University. He holds an LLB and BA from Auckland University. His practice covers civil and criminal matters. He is regarded as an expert on human rights law. Shaw has appeared widely in the District and High Courts of New Zealand including successful appeals to the Court of Appeal, Privy Council and the New Zealand Supreme Court. Shaw has also appeared in the Employment Court of New Zealand and regularly appears before the New Zealand Parole Board.

<i>PJS v News Group Newspapers Ltd</i> UK legal case

PJS v News Group Newspapers Ltd [2016] UKSC 26 is a UK constitutional law case in which an anonymised privacy injunction was obtained by a claimant, identified in court documents as "PJS", to prohibit publication of the details of a sexual encounter between him and two other people. Media outside England and Wales identified PJS as David Furnish.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Murder of Grace Millane</span> 2018 killing of a British tourist in New Zealand

Grace Emmie Rose Millane was a British tourist who was murdered in Auckland, New Zealand, in December 2018. A 26-year-old man, Jesse Shane Kempson, was charged with her murder on 8 December 2018.

References

  1. ↑ Caloyannides, Michael A. (2004). Privacy Protection and Computer Forensics, Second Edition. Computer Protection Series. Artech House. pp. 302–304. ISBN   978-1580538305.
  2. ↑ Malloy, Michael P. (2011). "14: Supervision of Troubled and Failing Institutions". Banking Law & Regulation. Aspen Publishing. pp. 14–4. ISBN   978-1454801078.
  3. ↑ Chemerinsky, Erwin. "Lawyers Have Free Speech Rights Too". Loyola of Los Angeles Entertainment Law Journal. 14.
  4. 1 2 Rathore, Mobeen (April 2014). "Physician "Gag Laws" and Gun Safety". Virtual Mentor. 16 (4): 284–8. doi:10.1001/virtualmentor.2014.16.04.pfor2-1404. PMID   24735578. Archived from the original on 17 November 2015. Retrieved 15 November 2015.
  5. ↑ Booth, Robert (30 July 2014). "WikiLeaks reveals Australian gagging order over political bribery allegations". The Guardian. Retrieved 27 August 2014.
  6. ↑ "A top cardinal's sex-abuse conviction is huge news in Australia. But the media can't report it there". The Washington Post. 12 December 2018. Retrieved 16 December 2018.
  7. ↑ "Cardinal George Pell Reportedly Convicted of Sex Abuse Amid Gag Order in Australia". NPR. 13 December 2018. Retrieved 16 December 2018.
  8. ↑ Cartwright, Lachlan (28 February 2019). "Vatican No. 3 Cardinal George Pell Convicted on Charges He Sexually Abused Choir Boys" . The Daily Beast.
  9. ↑ Olmstead, Molly (12 December 2018). "Report: Third-Highest Ranking Vatican Official Convicted on Sex Abuse Charges in Australia". Slate.
  10. ↑ Meade, Amanda (26 February 2019). "Dozens of journalists accused of breaking Pell suppression order face possible jail terms". The Guardian. Retrieved 26 February 2019.
  11. ↑ "Brazil's right-wing government puts gag order on environment agency". Reuters. 13 March 2019. Retrieved 18 January 2023.
  12. ↑ Mitta, Manoj (7 January 2009). "Law readied to gag TV in crises". The Times of India . Archived from the original on 26 September 2012. Retrieved 8 September 2011.
  13. ↑ "Debate in Israel on Gag Order in Security Leak Case". The New York Times . 6 April 2010. Retrieved 8 September 2011.
  14. ↑ Ravid, Barak (14 February 2013). "Ben Zygier affair: Israel partially lifts gag order on case of dual citizen's prison suicide". Haaretz. Retrieved 14 February 2013.
  15. ↑ Hartman, Ben (20 November 2013). "Eyal Golan revealed to be mystery singer suspected of sex with underage girls". The Jerusalem Post. Jerusalem. Archived from the original on 5 September 2015. Retrieved 18 September 2015.
  16. 1 2 "Two Israelis missing after disappearing into Gaza, one being held by Hamas". Haaretz . 9 July 2015.
  17. ↑ "Two Israelis are held in Gaza". Maariv . 9 July 2015.
  18. ↑ "Amid Detente With Hamas, Israel Says 2 Citizens Held in Gaza". The New York Times . Associated Press. 9 July 2015. Archived from the original on 12 July 2015. Retrieved 30 April 2017.
  19. ↑ Order To Endorse Press Statements To Maximise Effectiveness, Says Tee Keat, Bernama, 8 January 2009.
  20. ↑ Tee Keat: No gag order on MCA bureau chiefs [ permanent dead link ], The Sun Daily, 8 January 2009. [ dead link ]
  21. ↑ "Lawyer for Myanmar's Suu Kyi says he has been issued a gag order". Reuters. 15 October 2021. Retrieved 18 January 2023.
  22. ↑ "Name suppression", Community Law NZ, 26 July 2021, retrieved 8 October 2024
  23. ↑ Criminal Procedure Act. Wellington: New Zealand Government. 2011. Section 200. Retrieved 9 October 2024.
  24. 1 2 3 Tyler, Francine (31 July 2020), "What's in a name? A history of New Zealand's unique name suppression laws and their impact on press freedom", Pacific Journalism Review : Te Koakoa, vol. 26, no. 1, ojs.aut.ac.nz, doi: 10.24135/pjr.v26i1.1093 , ISSN   2324-2035 , retrieved 8 October 2024
  25. 1 2 Harcourt, Anna (7 November 2022), "Why people get name suppression in NZ", Re: News, archived from the original on 20 January 2024, retrieved 8 October 2024
  26. ↑ Kidd, Rob, "Taking power away from the perpetrator", Otago Daily Times, retrieved 8 October 2024
  27. ↑ "Blogger fights fine for breaching supression", Stuff, 7 July 2011, retrieved 8 October 2024
  28. ↑ Williams, By (10 May 2016), "Cameron Slater, fearless crusader against name suppression, just had his name suppression lifted", The Spinoff, archived from the original on 10 May 2016, retrieved 8 October 2024
  29. ↑ Hurley, Sam (13 December 2018), "Bar Association says ongoing suppression breaches in Grace Millane murder case endanger trial", NZ Herald, retrieved 8 October 2024
  30. ↑ Owen, Catrin (28 April 2021), "Grace Millane suppression breach: Leo Molloy fined $15,000 for naming killer on forum", Stuff, retrieved 8 October 2024
  31. ↑ "'Can't believe frankly what I've just heard': Te Pāti Māori's Waititi shocks with comment under parliamentary privilege", Newshub, 23 August 2023, archived from the original on 11 April 2024, retrieved 16 September 2024
  32. ↑ "Oral Questions — Questions to Ministers - August 23 2023", NZ Parliament Hansard Debates, archived from the original on 11 April 2024, retrieved 16 September 2024
  33. ↑ Mcculloch, Craig (29 August 2024), "Te Pāti Māori 'more aware and respectful' of Parliament's relationship with courts", RNZ, retrieved 16 September 2024
  34. ↑ "Name Suppression: Balancing Open Justice and Privacy", Equal Justice Project, 18 September 2024, retrieved 8 October 2024
  35. ↑ "What you need to know about name suppression", RNZ, 15 September 2015, archived from the original on 30 October 2022, retrieved 8 October 2024
  36. 1 2 Barrett, Jonathan (12 January 2012), "Name Suppression Orders and Web 2.0 Media: the New Zealand Experience", European Journal of Law and Technology, vol. 3, no. 1, ejlt.org, ISSN   2042-115X , retrieved 8 October 2024
  37. ↑ "Bar Association says current name suppression laws allow for balancing important rights", New Zealand Bar Association, retrieved 8 October 2024
  38. ↑ Release, Press (18 July 2021). "Insecurity: SERAP asks Buhari govt to withdraw gag order on reportage". Premium Times Nigeria. Retrieved 18 January 2023.
  39. ↑ "Terrorism: SERAP, PTCIJ sue Buhari, Mohammed over media 'gag order'". Premium Times Nigeria. 25 July 2021. Retrieved 18 January 2023.
  40. 1 2 Alan Travis (22 May 2013). "Triple child killer David McGreavy can be named, high court judges rule: Judges revoke 'mistaken' gagging order about coverage of long-serving UK prisoner's parole application". The Guardian. Retrieved 22 May 2013. An anonymity order preventing the naming of one of Britain's most notorious child killers as David McGreavy has been lifted by the high court.
  41. ↑ Reporting Restrictions in the Criminal Courts (PDF) (Report). Judicial Studies Board. October 2009. Archived from the original (PDF) on 6 June 2013. Retrieved 22 June 2013.
  42. ↑ Casciani, Dominic (15 January 2008). "Secrecy ruling over murder trial". BBC News. Retrieved 10 September 2011.
  43. ↑ Norton-Taylor, Richard (11 January 2008). "Secrets and lies". The Guardian . Retrieved 10 September 2011.
  44. ↑ "News in Brief". The Times . 14 January 2008. Retrieved 10 September 2011.[ dead link ]
  45. ↑ Gibb, Frances (13 December 2007). "Why is Home Office trying to stage murder trial in secret?". The Times . Retrieved 10 September 2011.[ dead link ]
  46. ↑ Swinford, Steven (23 May 2011). "Ryan Giggs: from golden boy to tarnished idol" . The Daily Telegraph. Archived from the original on 12 January 2022. Retrieved 28 May 2011.
  47. ↑ Wright, Simon (24 January 2015). "James Bulger Killer Jon Venables Joins Dating Website Under Different Name". Daily Mirror . Retrieved 8 May 2015.
  48. ↑ "Andere Tijden: Lekker Dier". 11 July 2013. Retrieved 15 November 2014.
  49. ↑ "Dierenwelzijn, Resource". 30 November 2006. Archived from the original on 23 April 2016. Retrieved 15 November 2014.
  50. ↑ "Braks wil spreekverbod ambtenaar niet opheffen". 14 February 1989. Retrieved 15 November 2014.
  51. ↑ District court The Hague 11 December 2015, C/09/497903 KG ZA 15/1556, ECLI:NL:RBDHA:2015:15050 (in Dutch)
  52. ↑ Husejnović, Alosman (4 January 2016). "Casper ten Dam: Nakon zabrane knjige o Srebrenici pravdu ćemo tražiti do Evropskog suda!" [Casper ten Dam: The Srebrenica book prohibition will lead us to seek justice all the way to the European Court!]. Dnevni Avaz (in Bosnian). Retrieved 4 January 2020.
  53. ↑ "Netherlands: Court bans book on Srebrenica genocide". Mapping Media Freedom, Index on Censorship . 24 December 2015. Retrieved 4 January 2020.
  54. ↑ Court of Appeal The Hague 12 April 2016, 200.183.987/01, ECLI:NL:GHDHA:2016:870 (in Dutch)
  55. ↑ "ACLU Roadmap of Justice Department Inspector General's Review of the FBI's Use of National Security Letters". American Civil Liberties Union. 19 March 2007. Retrieved 10 September 2011.
  56. ↑ Kravets, David (20 October 2009). "Judge Refuses to Lift 5-Year-Old Patriot Act Gag Order". Wired News . Retrieved 10 September 2011.
  57. ↑ In Re: Application of the United States of America for an Order Pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 2703(d) of 25 January 2013, p. 4, from the Wikileaks-related Twitter subpoenas
  58. ↑ In Re: Sealing and Non-disclosure of Pen/Trap/2703(d) Orders of 30 May 2008, p. 5
  59. ↑ Finn, Peter (7 January 2009). "Judge's Order Could Keep Public From Hearing Details of 9/11 Trials". The Washington Post . Retrieved 10 September 2011.
  60. ↑ "San Diego Judge Puts Unprecedented Gag Order on Sidewalk Chalk Protestor Trial". Truthout. 28 June 2013. Retrieved 1 July 2013.
  61. ↑ Goldenberg, Suzanne (5 August 2013). "Children given lifelong ban on talking about fracking". The Guardian. Retrieved 6 August 2013.
  62. ↑ Hopey, Don (7 August 2013). "Hallowich children not part of Marcellus Shale gag order agreement". Pittsburgh Post-Gazette. Archived from the original on 10 August 2013. Retrieved 14 August 2013.
  63. ↑ "CA Penal Code § 1546.2 (2017)". Onecle Inc. State of California. 2017. Retrieved 26 May 2020.
  64. ↑ Cintrón, Dr. Carmelo Delgado. "La obra jurídica del Profesor David M. Helfeld (1948–2008)" (in Spanish). Archived from the original on 27 March 2012.
  65. ↑ "Puerto Rican History". Topuertorico.org. 13 January 1941. Retrieved 20 November 2011.
  66. ↑ La Gobernación de Jesús T. Piñero y la Guerra Fría
  67. ↑ Hernández, Clodovaldo (26 November 2004). "Venezuela aprueba la polémica ley de control de radio y televisión". El País. Retrieved 26 August 2015.
  68. ↑ "Aprueban en Venezuela la polémica "Ley Mordaza"". El Nuevo Herald. 26 November 2004. Retrieved 26 August 2015.
This page is based on this Wikipedia article
Text is available under the CC BY-SA 4.0 license; additional terms may apply.
Images, videos and audio are available under their respective licenses.