In Canada, there's a big uproar. We have this huge commission investigating goverment fraud. Now, the judge in charge put a publication ban on certain witnesses as there are some criminal charges pending here.
But apparently ONE US web site blew the lid wide open since the Canadian ban doesn't apply to them. The testimony is quite revealing - showing that the corruption wasn't just one or two people but the entire Liberal party (or at least its administrators).
My question though would simply be if bloggers aren't permitted to be given the same level of "protection" that journalists are, then why SHOULDN'T they be allowed to talk about it (albeit in hushed whispers and innuendo)?
(This is fairly tongue in cheek ) - if you report on something that is supposedly BANNED, then obviously that's wrong but how can judges today honestly expect publication bans to work? It didn't work in the US (Matt Drudge is an example of that) and it's not working in Canada.
Perhaps the Vatican has the right approach. Lock everyone away until a decision has been made but then so much for letting everyone know...