I find the idea of going back and editing the record of the past a bit too disturbing. That’s exactly what Winston Smith did for a living in Nineteen Eighty-Four.

They can do that because the law in Victoria only affects publication in Victoria. I assume there was a different version of that story for copies of the paper being sold in Victoria.

The internet version of the story was worded to comply, and was very careful to be vague enough so as not to breach the spirit of the law. Basically it said “One youth who attended (the party) has been charged.

Same thing happens with suppression orders, and the prohibition on publishing the names of defendants in certain cases at committal stage.

Interstate media can happily report all the suppressed details.

Well, if my lawyer friend reckons the Reuters story was over the line, then this morning’s Daily Telegraph crossed it and kept on running. Their page one story today blasted the headline “[Name] Child Porn Charge” — though as I look this evening the online version’s headline is a tamer “Week-long party ends in charges”.

Crikey’s Greg Barns writes:

Every media organisation in Australia knows this fundamental rule: when a person under the age of 18 is charged they are entitled to anonymity.

This age old rule is reflected in Victoria by section 534 of the Children, Youth and Families Act 2005 which says that no person shall publish any particulars of a proceeding before the Children’s Court or any other court for that matter, which is likely to lead to the identification of the child involved in the proceeding. You can apply to get the permission of the President of the Children’s Court to get that ban lifted.

The fine for breaching this provision is $5000 if you are a corporation like a newspaper, or $1000 if you are an individual.

You know, if I were David Pemberthy editing the Tele, I reckon my risk calculation would be that the risk of a mere $5000 was peanuts compared with the potential sales spike.

Barns reckons he knows where the blame lies too:

The Victoria Police are not blameless in this saga either. Charging a child with possessing child pornography, when the evidence is simply a bunch of images of naked teenage girls playing Twister at a party, is a potentially a serious waste of taxpayers money and resources. How many 15-year-olds have pictures of their naked 14-year-old girlfriends on their phone or computer? A lot, is the answer.

I bow to his knowledge about what’s on teenagers’ phones — but yes, naked does not equal pornography. TV adverts showing naked babies advertising toilet paper is proof enough of that!

@Rhys: Glad to be of service! However I don’t think young Corey will be serving fries and soft drinks any time soon. I doubt any employer would trust him with the cash till.

@Bernard: AFAIK that law about piercings for minors was mooted but never made it to parliament. It’d be a state-by-state thing though, and I am not an expert.

Lawyer friends have any comments here?

Is that an urban myth, or was it a “proposed change” that never got up?

Ex-politician remanded in custody

How many other “ex politician” “Australian lawyer” “recently extradited from Honiara” “sex crimes in Vanuatu” do ya reckon there are???

Combination with the lowest denominator in all those is probably “lawyer in Honiara”, but that is beside the point…

Personally I’d be more inclined to regulate the identification of all minors, provided of course that the minors can be educated to avoid inappropriately disclosing their identities themselves.

While searching for that news story, I discovered that when introducing the Anti-Discrimination (Homosexual Vilification) Amendment Bill to NSW parliament in 1993, Clover Moore stated that in 1991, 69% of assaults in Surry Hills were gay-related.

The media wants us to feel constantly shocked, scared, worried, etc. And then someone like Mr. Corey comes along, and journalists everywhere act appalled, for the sake of representing an audience who (for once) have a clearly defined suburban menace.

I liken it to the RSPCA. It’s much easier to focus on cats and dogs, since nobody wants to hear about the many thousands of factory farmed pigs spending most of their lives in hellish cages no bigger than their artificially fattened bodies. You’d get better karma eating a handful of maggots.

Mr. Corey is a much preferred media target than, say, genocide in Sudan, and a much more manageable quantity for the police than, say, a gay-hate attack in Surry Hills despite having footage of the attackers, which nobody sees a profit in publishing. The footage had to be dragged out of the police after a month of asking.

In law, sub judice, Latin for “under judgement,” means that a particular case or matter is currently under trial or being considered by a judge or court. The term may be used synonymously with “the present case” or “the case at bar” by some lawyers.

In England and Wales, New Zealand, Australia, India and Canada it is generally considered inappropriate to publicly comment on cases sub judice and can even be an offence in itself, leading to contempt of court proceedings. This is particularly true in criminal cases, where publicly discussing cases sub judice may constitute interference with due process.

In the United States, there are First Amendment concerns about stifling the right of free speech which prevent such tight restrictions on comments sub judice. However, there are still protections for criminal defendants and those convicted in an atmosphere of a circus have had their convictions overturned for a fairer trial.

Journalists and media producers like myself are trained in this stuff very early on in our careers. The blogosphere is not necessarily as well-educated.