Your source doesn't support your allegations.

> It’s illegal in Britain to report the details of some trials before they conclude

> Robinson was convicted of breaking that law last year

> He showed up with his cameraman again Friday — this time outside a restricted child-sex-abuse trial at Leeds Crown Court, for what he inaccurately announced was the verdict.

So not only was he not arrested for broadcasting generally (rather for breaking a law forbidding reporting on of trials before they conclude) but this trial was also not "public".

This revealed a bizarre feature of UK law. The facts he broadcast were taken from a local newspaper. Newspapers are allowed to report names and charges of defendants, presumably before their trial begins, but then reporting is banned until after it's over. What happens if some shop has old copies of last week's paper on the shelf? Or if it's an online newspaper that keeps all its historic articles available? It also can't stop people in other countries publishing it on the internet. The law seems kind of irrelevant and impossible to be effective.

The other day, I saw a bizarre talk on Youtube about this case by a UK and Canadian activist sitting together in the same room. At one point, the UK citizen stops talking and the Canadian takes over to tell some information. Then the UK person continues. Why? Because he could be arrested if he said it himself so he needed someone who wasn't going to the UK to say it for him.

I think your missing the context here, and falling for clickbaity anger inducing headlines.

He had a previous suspended sentence for filming inside a court a couple of months earlier. He then thought "hey, you know what's a good idea? Disobeying a judge's direct no-reporting order (to maintain the integrity of the trial) literally right outside the freaking courthouse.

I consider not giving him a slap on the wrist pretty sensible.

«judge's direct no-reporting order» I can’t seem to be able to find a source that confirms that order actually existed. Do you happen to have a credible one so I can verify it isn’t fake news?

Here's the sentencing remarks from the first case: https://www.judiciary.gov.uk/publications/committal-for-cont...

Restrictions on what can be reported while a trial is happening are common, and not unusual in England. It should be obvious that you cannot, before someone has been convicted, call them a Muslim Paedophiles or Muslim child rapists, and you can't threaten to go round their house.

After being convicted for contempt of court, and given a very clear warning not to do the samething again he does exactly the same thing again.

For a good summary of the Yaxley Lennon situation there's this from a barrister: https://thesecretbarrister.com/2018/05/25/what-has-happened-...

Here's what the judge says (but please do read the entire document):

---begin ---

The sentence, therefore, that I pass upon you, taking into account all of those matters that have been placed before me and your admissions entered via Mr. Kovalevsky, is one of three months' imprisonment which will be suspended for a period of 18 months. That will be suspended. There will be no conditions that need to be attached to that suspended sentence, but you should be under no illusions that if you commit any further offence of any kind, and that would include, I would have thought a further contempt of court by similar actions, then that sentence of three months would be activated, and that would be on top of anything else that you were given by any other court. In short, Mr. Yaxley-Lennon, turn up at another court, refer to people as "Muslim paedophiles, Muslim rapists" and so on and so forth while trials are ongoing and before there has been a finding by a jury that that is what they are, and you will find yourself inside. Do you understand? Thank you very much.

MR. KOVALEVSKY: Your Honour, may we extend our thanks for the patience with which you have heard us this afternoon.

JUDGE NORTON: I am very sorry that we have gone on so late. Thank you very much for bearing with this rather lengthy case. Thank you both very much indeed for your help. Finally, can I just say this to Mr. -- I don't know whether it is Robertson or Robson who has just left the court, or indeed to anybody in the public gallery: I hope they have heard what I have said. There are real risks in publication and there are real risks in what is put online, and I hope that everybody will respect the judgment of this court and will not be tempted to do anything which might frankly, unwittingly or otherwise, either impede this trial or might land Mr. Yaxley-Lennon, or indeed themselves, in even more trouble.