Yes, and India is not a bastion for consistent and progressive jurisprudence. You are the only one classifying it as a "serious debate". And since when does accused anonymity equate to a complete banning of reporting on the details of an alleged crime?

If a country's stability is so easily damaged by details of a corruption case, then maybe it's time for a change. Nothing is more important than the truth and the freedom to report the truth. Who should be trusted to judge what should and should not be reported, and how much "damage" the truth would cause someone? The answer is no one.

Lord Justice Leveeson's inquiry into the press (the context in which this discussion of defendant anonymity takes) place has been a very high profile event in the UK. You asked for examples, I supplied some.

If a country's stability is so easily damaged by details of a corruption case, then maybe it's time for a change. Nothing is more important than the truth and the freedom to report the truth. Who should be trusted to judge what should and should not be reported, and how much "damage" the truth would cause someone? The answer is no one.

I hold a different opinion. The media likes to wax noble about the truth when a great deal of the time it aims to exploit gossip or poorly-substantiated rumor for economic gain, cf. the tabloid press. I can see value in a temporary moratorium which does not distort the historical record but which does not facilitate exploitation of it either. As I've said before, what the public is interested in is not the same thing as what is in the public interest.

You didn't give me an example. The UK attempted example was for anonymity, not a complete shut down of the press.

A small percentage of the media may be involved in gossip, but when it comes to political corruption, we need to have complete transparency, without any compromises. Using the threat of economic consequences is a horrible reason to enable politicians to usurp power from the free press.

I gave you the example of India (which derives its court system from the UK), it's not my fault you didn't like it.

A small percentage of the media may be involved in gossip, but when it comes to political corruption, we need to have complete transparency, without any compromises.

You need transparency of result, but you don't need it immediately. Legal proceedings can feature a lot of untruths as well, some of which could cause great harm. The reality is that courts in civilized countries deal with sealed evidence/testimony on a regular basis for a variety of reasons, and this doesn't substantially impede the course of justice even though it may occasionally be perverted. I'm highly skeptical of arguments that reject any possibility of compromise, because they tend to assume the outcome will be a perfect process.

Using the threat of economic consequences is a horrible reason to enable politicians to usurp power from the free press.

I think you're projecting your imagination about what the case involves a bit here. I really don't see enough details to be sure. What if the allegations under seal turn out to be baseless or inaccurate, for example? Is the satisfaction of immediate total transparency worth the damage that may accrue during a multi-year legal proceeding before the court issues a verdict? After all, you can punish guilty parties following a conviction, but it's very hard to repair an innocent person's reputation.

Where senior officials of other countries may be involved in a case, in a variety of capacities from potentially culpable to entirely innocent, are you willing to risk plunging someone else's country into political instability before you've had time to fully assess the evidence? What if the people of the country think the legal proceeding is an attempt to meddle with their internal politics, whether or not this is actually the case?

I strongly disagree with you about transparency being an unalloyed good or a panacea for social ills. Within reasonable limits (and I think a 5-year period for a complex legal proceeding may meet that standard) it can be appropriate to employ judicial discretion.

Obviously, we're not going to agree about this, but I'll put a note on my calendar to follow it up in 2019 and see what the big secret was.

As I said, India is a highly corrupt country, and their judicial system is not worthy of discussion. In a country where bribing of police officers is commonplace, I'm sure everything is open for discussion.

All you are doing is spreading FUD. If you were concerned about innocent people's reputations, then you would want all trials to be "in camera" with no information for 5 years.

There isn't even a single example where having an open trial plunged a country into political instability with the likes of what you describe, let alone from a trial in another country. It's pure nonsense.

"But but but... it COULD happen!" No, it can't ever happen. It's never happened and it never will.

There is no justification to censor the press for any reason, especially political censorship.

You don't have to approve of India's judicial system to acknowledge the fact that it hold some kinds of trials in camera, which was all I asserted.

"But but but... it COULD happen!" No, it can't ever happen. It's never happened and it never will.

Really? Here's an example of a trial that resulted in the collapse of a government, the assassination of a central figure, and eventual reversal of the verdicts by a higher court that found serious irregularities in how the trial had been conducted.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rudolf_Kastner

But carry on, you clearly know far more about this stuff than I do.

Interesting example but still further nonsense. A no confidence vote isn't political instability, that's exactly how the government should be working, ie political stability, especially when you have coalition governments. A government losing power in a no confidence vote happens all the time. That's like saying the US was plunged into ypolitical instability when George Bush Sr. lost his second term because of the "no new taxes" misstep.

Political instability is what happened in Syria, Thailand, Egypt, etc over the last few years. Contrast this to Canada where the same coalition government broke down and cause several elections over a span of a few years. But an educated perso would never consider Canada to be politically unstable.

If you want a more obvious example you could just look at Thailand, but I didn't really want to bring that up because it's so current and it's so hard to tell whether legal actions against erstwhile prime minister Yingluck Shinawatra were brought in good faith or pursuant to the plotting of the military coup (she was dismissed from office by the Thai constitutional Court over the transfer of a national security adviser, which the court said was to facilitate nepotism).