What right does a countries government have to ban worldwide.

ScouseMouse

Hiya all.

So, it is in the news again about a psychopath paedophile called Jon Venables who has been locked up in the UK again. He was given a new identity, and the british judiciary imposed a WORLDWIDE ban on revealing his new name or publishing his photo.

An example plucked from google
https://www.gov.uk/government/news/ban-on-images-of-jon-venables-and-robert-thompson

So my question is: what right does the government/judiciary of a country - any country, have to stop photos of anyone worldwide. Indeed, I believe it is not limited to photos, I believe it also covers info which would allow them to be identified.

GerardKeating

ScouseMouse wrote: »

Hiya all.

So, it is in the news again about a psychopath paedophile called Jon Venables who has been locked up in the UK again. He was given a new identity, and the british judiciary imposed a WORLDWIDE ban on revealing his new name or publishing his photo.

An example plucked from google
https://www.gov.uk/government/news/ban-on-images-of-jon-venables-and-robert-thompson

So my question is: what right does the government/judiciary of a country - any country, have to stop photos of anyone worldwide. Indeed, I believe it is not limited to photos, I believe it also covers info which would allow them to be identified.

Some countries claim extra-terroritial juristrtiction in certain areas, the upcoming trial in France of Ian Bailey is one example.

The US government can claim world wide juristriction of a crime if it involves the almighty Dollar.

And only a media company with no UK business interest or partner will break the embargo on Jon Venables, and they will be very few...

ljy9fn7qwhgasx

GerardKeating wrote: »

Some countries claim extra-terroritial juristrtiction in certain areas, the upcoming trail in France on Ian Baily is one example.

The US government can claim world wide juristriction of a crime if it involves the almighty Dollar.

And only a media company with no UK business interest or partner will break the embargo on Jon Venables, and they will be very few...

ScouseMouse

Lyanna Defeated Manure wrote: »

For goodness' sake spell 'trial' and 'Bailey' right if you feel so obliged to inflict your brainwaves on other people. This is a public forum. Act accordingly.

Think you need to calm down a bit. The ban does not just apply to the media, it also applies to individuals.

Personally, I would be delighted if he was publicly lynched, but the question is: how can a government apply a WORLDWIDE ban?

GerardKeating

ScouseMouse wrote: »

Personally, I would be delighted if he was publicly lynched, but the question is: how can a government apply a WORLDWIDE ban?

They cannot, but they can target any UK Business interest of any person or company whom breaks the ban, for example some entity in Ireland whom breaks the ban, and also banks with Ulster Bank, might find their accounts closed.

Ken.

Here's a question I've been thinking about since SM posted. If I was on Holidays in England and got a photo of Jon Venables and came home and then posted the pic to every website I could think of, could the English try to extradite me and would the Irish government/courts allow it?

GerardKeating

Conspectus wrote: »

Here's a question I've been thinking about since SM posted. If I was on Holidays in England and got a photo of Jon Venables and came home and then posted the pic to every website I could think of, could the English try to extradite me and would the Irish government/courts allow it?

Most certainly, most of the website would remove the photos fairly promtly, but it would (at least this year or next year) be a European Arrest Warrant rather than extradition if they wanted you.

Really Interested

Conspectus wrote: »

Here's a question I've been thinking about since SM posted. If I was on Holidays in England and got a photo of Jon Venables and came home and then posted the pic to every website I could think of, could the English try to extradite me and would the Irish government/courts allow it?

Currently there is no extradition to UK until Brexit such matters are covered by a European Arrest Warrant. EAW’s have very specific rules in Ireland require that the requesting country has decided to actually prosecute the person.

So if the UK can show the Irish Court that the person is accused of a crime that in most cases is also a crime in Ireland and the punishment that can be imposed satisfies min time and the UK has made a decision to actually prosecute not just require the person for investigation. Then maybe a EAW possible the fly in the ointment would be would same actions be covered by criminal law in Ireland that I’m not sure.

Farmer Bob

ScouseMouse wrote: »

So my question is: what right does the government/judiciary of a country - any country, have to stop photos of anyone worldwide. Indeed, I believe it is not limited to photos, I believe it also covers info which would allow them to be identified.

They have no extra-territorial power.

Sure, they can say they've made a worldwide order but How would they go about acting on it? Can you break a law of a country without ever having set foot in It?

GerardKeating

Farmer Bob wrote: »

They have no extra-territorial power.

Sure, they can say they've made a worldwide order but How would they go about acting on it? Can you break a law of a country without ever having set foot in It?

Perhaps Yes

Farmer Bob

GerardKeating wrote: »

Perhaps Yes

Old article. This case is going to the Supreme Court, isn’t it?

cf. Gary McKinnion and Lauri Love

Really Interested

Farmer Bob wrote: »

Old article. This case is going to the Supreme Court, isn’t it?

cf. Gary McKinnion and Lauri Love

It was decided by the SC if I remember who upheld the High Court decision

https://www.google.ie/amp/s/www.irishtimes.com/news/crime-and-law/courts/man-to-be-extradited-over-silk-road-website-has-appeal-refused-1.2992214%3fmode=amp

Peregrinus

ScouseMouse wrote: »

Think you need to calm down a bit. The ban does not just apply to the media, it also applies to individuals.

Personally, I would be delighted if he was publicly lynched, but the question is: how can a government apply a WORLDWIDE ban?

Any government can apply a worldwide ban; the question is whether or how how they can enforce it.

If, from the safety of Ireland you were to post a photograph of Jon Venables on Facebook, say, the UK authorities wouldn't chase you; they'd chase Facebook. And since they're in a position to act adversely against Facebook's interest in the UK, you'd find that the photograph, and probably your entire Facebook account, would disappear fairly quickly. And the same would happen if you put it on Instagram, Tumbler, etc. And it goes without saying that Google, Yahoo, etc would not be indexing the photograph.

The truth is that there probably are dark corners of the web where information identifying Jon Venables is lurking. But they are difficult to find unless you already know that the information is there; the mechanisms that would normally be used either to host the information or to locate it are all sufficiently amenable to UK jurisidiction that they comply with the court order.

I think the fact that you can't easily find out Jon Venables current identity, location, etc, speaks for itself. Despite vigilantes who would circulate the information if they could, it is effectively suppressed, worldwide.

But it does take a fairly extreme effort to make this work. There have been a number of "super-injunctions" issued by the English courts, to suppress the identity of public figures involved in court proceedings which disclosed embarrassing behaviours, and to suppress also the knowledge that such an injunction has been made. In prettty well every case they have failed in their object; word of the super-injunction leaks, and shortly afterwards information about the identity of those involved. And those you will find by googling.

The difference is probably in the resources commited to policing these things. The UK probation service will take action to press for the removal of information about John Venables. Whereas for the actor, footballer or pop star trying to keep his complicated sexual life out of the press, it's up to him and his lawyers continually to monitor the media (inc. social media) and to act vigorously to have mentions of whatever-it-is removed as soon as they appear. That's a tiresome and expensive operation to keep up indefinitely.

Carawaystick

The OP's link is an injunction of the high court of Wales and England, not the govt of slightly larger kingdom they are in.

Peregrinus

Carawaystick wrote: »

The OP's link is an injunction of the high court of Wales and England, not the govt of slightly larger kingdom they are in.

Yes, but I think we're using "government" here in the sense of all arms of government - legislative, executive and judicial.

hullaballoo

The judiciary isn't a limb of government in this country, thankfully.

In other news, the fifth annual legal discussion pedantry competition will be open for entries from 3.45pm until a quarter to four this afternoon. Entries that are deemed insufficiently stamped will be excluded.

Peregrinus

hullaballoo wrote: »

The judiciary isn't a limb of government in this country, thankfully.

It certainly is. From the Constitution:

ARTICLE 6

1 All powers of government, legislative, executive and judicial, derive, under God, from the people, whose right it is to designate the rulers of the
State and, in final appeal, to decide all questions of national policy, according to the requirements of the common good.

2 These powers of government are exercisable only by or on the authority of the organs of State established by this Constitution.

hullaballoo wrote: »

In other news, the fifth annual legal discussion pedantry competition will be open for entries from 3.45pm until a quarter to four this afternoon. Entries that are deemed insufficiently stamped will be excluded.

I will be aiming to take out the All-Ireland title this year. Again.

Carawaystick

Peregrinus wrote: »

It certainly is. From the Constitution:

I will be aiming to take out the All-Ireland title this year. Again.

I hope there's no questions on Article 28.1

bunreacht wrote:

The Government shall consist of not less than seven and not more than fifteen members who shall be appointed by the President in accordance with the provisions of this Constitution.

Peregrinus

Ah. We come here to the crucial distinction observed in Bunreacht na hÉireann between "government" and "the Government".

The judiciary is one of the three branches of government. The executive is another of those branches, and the topmost organ of the executive branch is "the Government".

The judiciary is not an arm of "the Government", but it is an arm of government.

Carawaystick

Peregrinus wrote: »

Ah. We come here to the crucial distinction observed in Bunreacht na hÉireann between "government" and "the Government".

The judiciary is one of the three branches of government. The executive is another of those branches, and the topmost organ of the executive branch is "the Government".

The judiciary is not an arm of "the Government", but it is an arm of government.

Obviously a constitution that cares to get involved in the length of time a couple need to be married to get divorced or worries about the status ov women in the home or allows abortion in cases where the 1861 act would prevent it, clearly outline the dirrfetewnce between a govt, the govt, and mar a deireann na cool kids, govt simplisitir

We've gone waaay off topic here, gml