Submitted by Mamacrass t3_z4u8p6 in nottheonion
Comments
DankPhotoShopMemes t1_ixuxgly wrote
What exactly is contempt? I thought it was just not doing what the court says
ijmacd t1_ixv3290 wrote
That's one way.
Contempt means not showing respect.
You could show a lack of respect to the court by not obeying it. Or you could try to humiliate the judge.
shadowrun456 t1_ixvphgt wrote
>You could show a lack of respect to the court by not obeying it. Or you could try to humiliate the judge.
Ok, but how does pointing out the judge's spelling mistake humiliate them? Even if the judge gets humiliated, that's because the judge made a spelling mistake, not because someone said the judge made a spelling mistake.
This article seems to have some parts of the story missing.
randomFrenchDeadbeat t1_ixyh40i wrote
The article says it pretty well, and is 5 lines long. What part of it confuses you ?
​
>The [facebook] post showed a picture of a judgment that had the word 'injunction' misspelt, with Naidu [the lawyer] adding the applicant wanted to have it correctly spelt.
If said lawyer and the person he represents wanted it corrected, they should have done it through the proper channels.
But they didnt; they just wanted to take a shot at the institution.
Note that it is not the judge that filed anything.
​
>The Attorney General had described the post as malicious and inviting others to mock the judiciary.
shadowrun456 t1_iy10uem wrote
>But they didnt; they just wanted to take a shot at the institution.
Nothing like that is written in the article, that's all your assumptions. Like I've said, this article seems to have some parts of the story missing.
Antibotics t1_iy1htnl wrote
It does appear to be in the article (somewhat paraphrased and extrapolated):
>The post showed a picture of a judgment that had the word 'injunction' misspelt, with Naidu adding the applicant wanted to have it correctly spelt. ... The Attorney General had described the post as malicious and inviting others to mock the judiciary.
A normal person wouldn't have posted the spelling mistake on Facebook (when a simple note to the judge in private would have sufficed) unless it was to invite comments from the public that were very likely to be embarrassing and disrespectful of the judge.
randomFrenchDeadbeat t1_iy2o5mk wrote
Thank you for stating the obvious. I was wondering why he was nort getting ti.
Remember that was posted by a lawyer, not the defendant.
the lawyer knows very well this was not the proper channel.
thesausboss t1_ixvtdf2 wrote
I didn't read anything on this post or background. But I can imagine that the method or wording when doing so would directly impact whether or not it's considered contempt.
Barkinsons t1_ixv3j9z wrote
It can be expanded to basically anything that interferes with the orderly administration of justice, and this includes upholding the dignity of the courts. The reasoning is that if lawyers would start to make a joke of the whole procedure, the entire process loses its legitimacy.
jimi15 t1_ixwn77p wrote
So the right to satire doesnt apply to judges? Despite it applying to any other public figure?
Barkinsons t1_ixxytnx wrote
The point here is that the lawyer involved in the case made the post, any unaffiliated person can still make fun of the judge.
jimi15 t1_ixyel0q wrote
Yea that makes sense.
OldWierdo t1_ixvlknt wrote
Then one ought to hold themselves to a standard above contempt. Some jobs, employees don't get to make mistakes. A judge who can't admit they're wrong after being proven wrong beyond a shadow of a doubt ought to never sit on the bench. If a judge makes a mistake and doesn't catch it while proofreading, Judge ought to be called out. Then they don't make mistakes again. They want a job where they can coast by with mistakes? Okay, find a different line of work.
Pilots also don't get to make mistakes. Submarine captains. Parachute riggers. Bungee jump installers. If any of them make a mistake, call them out.
randomFrenchDeadbeat t1_ixyf76u wrote
That is not the issue.
No idea why you talk about "cant admit they're wrong".
Unless you are reacting without having read said article... for someone who holds other to high standards, that would be pretty ironical.
Imaging requiring everyone else to do their utmost, all the time, and then reacting to a news article without reading said article ...
OldWierdo t1_ixzeley wrote
I did read it.
You can have someone who doesn't pay attention to details adjudicate your cases. I'll stick with those who at least put in the time to use spell check.
Jesterok t1_ixx146z wrote
Well, maybe the judge, who is a professional that's held to one of the highest standards, should edit his writings because you know damned well that ANY little mistake a defendant makes gets them railroaded.
ShadowDragon8685 t1_iy08gtu wrote
The authoritarianism flows deep in this one.
This was a bullshit ruling that should be overturned. If a judge does something contemptuous, they should not be above mockery.
The correct response to being called out on a spelling mistake? "Mea culpa, I was tired and didn't spellcheck it. The correct spelling of 'Injunction' is as precedes."
randomFrenchDeadbeat t1_iy2opyk wrote
The correct action to signal a mistake when you are a lawyer is to send a private message through proper channels, not post it on facebook.
Doing the latter invites mockery. There is no other point in posting that in public, and yes, justice IS above mockery, wether you like it or not.
That could be an understandable mistake if the person publishing it was a regular one, but it was a lawyer.
BTW thats not the first time something like that happens in the US. Got this with a simple googling.
https://www.fbcnews.com.fj/news/court/lautoka-lawyer-convicted-of-contempt-of-court/
ShadowDragon8685 t1_iy2pa27 wrote
Hrm, yes, let's see here... FBC News carries, according to them, "the latest news in Fiji."
That link in question notes,
> This is in relation to a committal proceeding filed against him by Prime Minister Voreqe Bainimarama and Attorney General Aiyaz Sayed-Khaiyum.
Prime Ministers... Yep, we sure do have a full stock o' them here in the United States of America, which, apparently, according to you, is Fiji.
In case the poster above deletes his post full'a ignorance, I'mma repost it in full:
> [–]randomFrenchDeadbeat [score hidden] 5 minutes ago
> The correct action to signal a mistake when you are a lawyer is to send a private message through proper channels, not post it on facebook.
> Doing the latter invites mockery. There is no other point in posting that in public, and yes, justice IS above mockery, wether you like it or not.
> That could be an understandable mistake if the person publishing it was a regular one, but it was a lawyer.
> BTW thats not the first time something like that happens in the US. Got this with a simple googling.
> https://www.fbcnews.com.fj/news/court/lautoka-lawyer-convicted-of-contempt-of-court/
randomFrenchDeadbeat t1_iy2pvgi wrote
Yeah, my bad.
It still happened, and for good reasons. You not liking the reason is a "you" problem.
ShadowDragon8685 t1_iy303vw wrote
No, it happened for shitty, authoritarian reasons. If your court cannot command respect without arresting dissenting voices and silencing mockery, it has no respect whatever, and is worthy of any and all contempt.
rdhight t1_ixwl1z1 wrote
This man is a hero.
Polarbare1 t1_ixvhkdq wrote
Mae West said it best: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=c1TaMQBnl-Q&ab_channel=CharlesNesson
cruiserman_80 t1_ixw8r5t wrote
I was hoping it would be for correcting your instead of you're or their instead of there.
Half of Reddit would be doing time, but the other half would be having a much more pleasent online experience.
[deleted] t1_ixwz9br wrote
[deleted]
CalTechie-55 t1_ixtk9f9 wrote
That's why we need a First Amendment.
This is the kind of shit that can happen without it.
Autismic123 t1_ixtsgi6 wrote
Fiji Lawyer
First Amendment
iceynyo t1_ixtwdin wrote
Must've thought it was about the water company
Autismic123 t1_ixtwfa6 wrote
yeah Fiji is probably part of alaska or something
ShadowDragon8685 t1_iy09f44 wrote
I think the point was "this kind of shit happening in a foreign country is why we, here, have, and need, the First Amendment."
PandasInHoodies t1_ixtqv7z wrote
r/USdefaultism
QuietShipper t1_ixullby wrote
Technically, this could be a resident of Fiji saying "we need a first amendment" making your comment r/USdefaultism
shadowrun456 t1_ixvpyxh wrote
Maybe, but freedom of speech is not unique to the US, and freedom of speech guaranteed by the first amendment in the US is not even the "freest" free speech in the world.
gathermewool t1_ixv3gv1 wrote
I get it normally and if this was /worldnews, but what percentage of Reddit members are from the US?
Drone30389 t1_ixtrgfj wrote
> When someone communicates to the world, but only considers the existence of USA, and don't consider the different nuances around the world.
How do you figure that fits?
Independent-Metal610 t1_ixts3lv wrote
Not OP but I’m just gonna take a wild stab in the dark here, so take what I’m about to say with a grain of salt. I could be completely wrong. Here goes:
Fiji isn’t the USA.
Drone30389 t1_ixtsn3z wrote
Of course it's not, why would they suggest needing a 1st amendment if it was?
Alexstarfire t1_ixu1u2s wrote
Yea, I'm confused by the downvotes. The original comment doesn't even make sense if they are talking about the USA.
Briancl12 t1_ixugjrb wrote
Because 1. First Amendment means something very different in most countries 2. It implies that the US First Amendment is the only thing that allows freedom of speech
DeepKaleidoscope5650 t1_ixtsbl2 wrote
Because it assumes the reader will infer that the author means the First Amendment of The Constitution of United States of America.
TubbyMurse t1_ixtuqru wrote
This thread is fun.
[deleted] t1_ixtv6sv wrote
[deleted]
Bestihlmyhart t1_ixugs3l wrote
It doesn’t. The dude literally said that’s why they need a first amendment not that they have one
Bolusss t1_ixwak4m wrote
What would be in that amendment? Chapter 2 of the constitution already guarantees their rights?
PandasInHoodies t1_ixtro6i wrote
How does it not?
randomFrenchDeadbeat t1_ixu2dke wrote
Except again, first amendment has nothing to do with it.
First amendment means the government cant prevent you from talking. Judges are not part of the government, as justice does not depend on government.
Contempt of court also exists in the US.
YakInner4303 t1_ixvd8dk wrote
In the United States, the judiciary is considered a branch of government coequal with the legislative and executive branches.
Regardless, the courts draw authority from laws. These are required to not infringe on freedom of speech by the US constitution. So a court cannot properly interpret a contempt law in a way that would allow a 'contempt of court' citation to infringe on freedom of speech.
randomFrenchDeadbeat t1_ixyffyk wrote
Dude, that was a public message on facebook, not a remark done in a court of law. Read the damn article.
This has nothing to do with freedom of speech.
Mandatory XKCD:
YakInner4303 t1_ixz8080 wrote
You made a false statement about US law. I corrected you.
The guy spoke in a public forum. The court took action to silence him. Very much a free speech issue.
randomFrenchDeadbeat t1_ixzmv4p wrote
No it is not. Read the damn XKCD.
ShadowDragon8685 t1_iy09w80 wrote
Yes it is. Mocking the court for the court's mistake is very much free speech in the U.S. The government, in the form of the court punishing the mocking party, would very quickly find itself on the wrong side of a ACLU lawsuit for infringing upon free speech.
randomFrenchDeadbeat t1_iy2ogp8 wrote
No, and you are wrong, proof here :
https://www.fbcnews.com.fj/news/court/lautoka-lawyer-convicted-of-contempt-of-court/
ShadowDragon8685 t1_iy2p3qj wrote
> This is in relation to a committal proceeding filed against him by Prime Minister Voreqe Bainimarama and Attorney General Aiyaz Sayed-Khaiyum.
Mmmmh, yes, we sure do have a Prime Minister here in the United States.
In case this poster deletes his post full'o ignorance, here it is, in full:
> [–]randomFrenchDeadbeat [score hidden] 8 minutes ago
> No, and you are wrong, proof here :
> https://www.fbcnews.com.fj/news/court/lautoka-lawyer-convicted-of-contempt-of-court/
randomFrenchDeadbeat t1_iy2pytg wrote
lol
i didnt even check who I was talking to.
you manage to answer twice, and wonder why you got the same answer twice XD
sexybimbogf t1_ixwtm1u wrote
contempt of court is not protected speech under the First Amendment
[deleted] t1_ixtv5vo wrote
[deleted]
randomFrenchDeadbeat t1_ixu280q wrote
Pointing out spelling mistake by posting it on facebook with a picture of the judge .
Which is the very definition of contempt. Glad he got convicted.