A few days ago, Judge Gomery put a publicationn ban in place for three witnesses at the adscam inquiry.

The inquiry has been public, the current ban is being reviewed daily by the judge.

The ban covers the testimony of John Brault, Groupaction; Paul Coffin, of Coffin Communications; and Charles (Chuck) Guité, Public Works.

The commission set up in February 2004 has a two part mandate:

1) - investigate and report on questions raised, directly or indirectly, by Chapters 3 and 4 of the November 2003 Report of the Auditor General of Canada.

2) - make recommendations to the Government of Canada, based upon its factual findings, to prevent mismanagement of sponsorship programs and advertising activities in the future.

A publication ban in Canada is usually put in place by a judge in order to protect victims and witnesses participating in court from suffering undue consequences. The media and the public are banned from publishing identities.
If a victim or witness wants the ban lifted, they submit the request in writing to the court.

In the Gomery inquiry, the ban includes the testimony of the three men since they have been charged with multiple counts of fraud and corruption by the Quebec Attorney General.

In the past author Stephen Williams broke a publication ban on the Bernado trial.
The Pickton preliminary hearing ban in 2003 was not followed by US television. The judge chose not to keep the US journalists from the courtroom, but he had the right to restrict access. A potentially tainted jury pool was a concern.

Breaking a ban can result in criminal charges, a fine, and up to two years in jail.

An aside here: I’ve covered high profile criminal court cases with publican bans. And knowing what is banned in testimony, as a journalist and person I would not give some of the details even if there hadn’t been bans.
Our ability to do unbelievably horrible things to fellow human beings does not always need to be spelled out or spilled out for consumption. Sometimes the common needs of a community have to be considered, for the sakes of victims, for the sake of our neighbours.

There is interesting psychology in public reaction to a publication ban.
Some people wind up wondering what is being hidden, why they aren’t allowed to know, and aren’t prepared to wait to know. Some have a political agenda.
Balancing the public’s right to know, the ability of the court to do it’s job, the right of the accused (in this inquiry) to fair trials in 2005 are decisions that are made and those boundaries will be pushed.

Bans are really being tested online.
A US blog that has posted the past weeks inquiry testimony has an unverified source.
Why would I or any Canadian blogger bother going there?
Some mid-level lawyer in the Justice Department on my back is so not worth it, the information will get out eventually. Media lawyers are involved in the inquiry, I think they can represent the public interests.

I believe in citizen journalism, but I wonder how far bloggers (in Canada) can push their luck with this. Some will decide Gomery’s decision doesn’t extend to them.

I chose to honour Judge Gomery’s decision and will not link up to the blogs posting in Canada, the US or anywhere else.
How Canadian? Yes. Nothing to defend or apologize for, and most of us choosing not to link at this time are following not only the letter of the law but the spirit of the law. English language bloggers sitting in BC aren’t part of the potential jury pool, but could pushing the boundary taint the potential jury pool?

found via E-Group Blogs Canada

Update: The broadcast media is honouring the judges decision and kind of getting around it by saying it is online, ‘we just can’t say where.’ In the internet age, and with the size of the inquiry, information is bound to get around. It will be interesting to see how this leak plays out.

Update: More on Canadian response in the post above and the legal threat to a Canadian after a weekend link.