essay on media trial pdf

In the judgment declared on 18th January 2021, the Bombay High Court, India has elaborated the position of media trials in India, declaring the judicial point of view. The court viewed the effects and consequences of media trials in the administration of justice, a quintessential factor of modern democracies. The judgment pronounced by Chief Justice Dipankar Datta and Justice G.S. Kulkarni of the Bombay High Court walks on a tight rope navigating the line between the “freedom of the press” guaranteed under Article 19(1)(a) of the Constitution of India and the menace of media trials running contrary to the same Constitution of India. But, in a larger scheme of questions does this case stand as a novelty in the jurisprudence i.e. “Modern Foundation of Media Trials in India” in a world consumed by emerging technologies?

In the wake of the death by suicide of the popular Indian actor, Sushant Singh Rajput, the reporting of this case provided for a sad state of affairs by news reporting channels. The reporting by such news channels hampered the investigation which was exponentially important for justice administration. Several Public Interest Litigations were filed in the Bombay High Court against the media trials in the wake of such reportage. The phenomenon of declaring the accused as a convict even before the Court had given its judgment, is called media trials. It is the widespread coverage of the guilt of the accused and imposing a certain perception about him, regardless of any of the verdict given by the court of law. In the present case, the reputation of the partner of the deceased actor, actress Rhea Chakraborty, was brutally torn apart by the media houses in what may constitute a “media trial”.

In the past, the fourth pillar of Indian democracy has proved to be a tool of advancing the interest of the victims in remarkable cases such as the Jessica Lal Case , the Priyadarshini Mattoo Case , 2006 and the Bijal Joshi Rape Case , 2005. The power of the fourth pillar,“media”, has been immense, however, when this power hampers the administration of justice, intervention by the Court becomes necessary.

The judgment pronounced by Chief Justice Dipankar Datta and Justice G.S. Kulkarni has touched upon several key issues in relation to media trials mainly dealing with: directions to prominent television networks to restrict reportage that could hamper the investigation, re-interpretation of contempt law, and guidelines for the regulation the print or broadcast media without curtailing the freedom of the press.

The highlight of the judgement lies in its guidelines established for media houses. The Court in its first provided guidelines of how media houses and channels must report cases dealing with suicide. Whereby the Court held that the privacy of the deceased must be respected at all times, the evidence of sensitive character must not be disclosed, police confessions cannot be made public and while the Court case goes ahead, no interviews of any personalities has to be taken.

The Court also raised the Press Council of India Guidelines and set that though they are binding on the print media, the electronic must abide the same too. In order to establish information in the interest of public.

An important facet of this judgment refers to the “administration of justice” and its extent of its application in modern democracies such as India. It also discusses the issue of contempt of court and places that disclosing any information during the investigation would amount to Contempt of Court. The Court held that TIMES NOW and REPUBLIC TV had reported cases maligning the investigation and obstructing the administration of justice. However, no action against them has been taken.

In the case Suresh Chandra Jana v. State of West Bengal (2017), the Supreme Court of India acknowledged the need to highlight the principle of “criminal justice administration”. This case constructed a broader understanding of the jurisprudence from a comparative perspective bringing the view of other modern democracies such as New Zealand, Australia, England, and the United States. In this case, the Supreme Court elaborated:

“Criminal Justice System seems to exist to protect the power, the privilege and the values of the elite sections in society. The way crimes are defined and the system is administered demonstrate that there is an element of truth in the above perception even in modern times.”

A new aspect of introducing a Media Officer has been suggested by the Court, who may act as a bridge between the media and investigating authority so as to let the public interest be preserved. However, the position can only be created through the legislature in letter and spirit.

On the subject-matter of forms of “regulation” by media houses, the Court has explicitly stated that concerns about the lack of regulation on the electronic mode and urged the Central Government to take appropriate measures to control the problem of “trial by media” through the establishment of statuary bodies.

While discussing the contempt liability issue, i.e. to re-interpret the contempt law with reference to publications of the cases made from the stage of filing an FIR in criminal cases may be subject to contempt liability. Under the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 , publications under free trials are sheltered against contempt proceedings. However, any publication which interferes with or obstructs or tends to obstruct any proceeding, be it civil or criminal, and the course of justice, which is actually a pending proceeding, constitutes contempt of court. An illustration of this immunity can be seen through the case of Aarushi Talwar’s Murder , 2013, the media had declared who was guilty and who was not even before the actual trial had begun. The press had immunity for such a publication previously. However, no interference of the legislature was noted. However, a broader understanding of the same has been provided by the Court bringing the action of trial by media under the realm of Contempt of Courts Act, 1971.

In what may be constructed as the modern foundation of a judicial stance on “trial by media” redefining our understanding of the effects of excess report coverage in the case of Actor Sushant Singh Rajput, the Court seeks to strike a balance between the pillars of our democracy from the judiciary to the media. More so, the view of the court must not be viewed as a solution to this issue. The true achievement shall lie in compliance and administration with the recommended guidelines by the Bombay High Court. With the emergence of newer technology and accessibility to the information point, the “Modern Foundation of Indian Media Trials” jurisprudence shall evolve.

It is a fact that media is bound to report cases of public interest, but, now the media must think twice before it reports asking a crucial question, “does this article or statement cross the line of freedom of the press and enter the realm of media trial?”. The judiciary and media are institutions inhabiting separate spheres and their functions do not overlap. One cannot and must not use the other for the discharge of its functions. The media should only engage in acts of journalism and not act as a special agency for the court. The impermissibility of freedom of speech and expression amounting to an interference with the administration of justice due to the prejudicial nature of certain media coverage.

The guidelines set out to create a new standard of media coverage and resorting benign practices with restrictions created in the interest of the administration of justice.

Vishwajeet Deshmukh is a 4th Year Law Student at Government Law College, Mumbai, India and JURIST Staff Editor.

Suggested citation: Vishwajeet Deshmukh, Media Trials in India: A Judicial View to Administration, JURIST – Student Commentary, January 20, 2021 https://www.jurist.org/commentary/2021/01/vishwajeet-deshmukh-media-trials-india/.

This article was prepared for publication by Khushali Mahajan , a JURIST staff editor. Please direct any questions or comments to her at [email protected]

Supreme Court ruled school segregation unconstitutional in Brown v. Board

On May 17, 1954, the US Supreme Court held in Brown v. Board of Education of Topeka that racially segregated public schools violated the Equal Protection Clause of the 14th Amendment. Pay a virtual visit to the Brown v. Board of Education National Historic Site .

Norway constitution signed

On May 17, 1814, the Constitution of Norway was signed. Today, the anniversary is celebrated as Constitution Day in Norway .

ISSN 2581-5369

HeinOnline, MANUPATRA, Google Scholar Indexed

Trial by Media: An Overview

• Nikitha Suresh and Lucy Sara George
• Show Author Details

Nikitha Suresh

Student at Kerala Law Academy Law College, India

Lucy Sara George

• img Download Full Paper
• img Export Citation

Export citation

Trial by media is a phrase popular in the late 20th century and early 21st century to describe the impact of television and newspaper coverage on a person's reputation by creating a widespread perception of guilt or innocence before, or after, a verdict in a court of law. In recent times there have been numerous instances in which media has conducted the trial of an accused and has passed the verdict even before the court passes its judgment. The Supreme Court reiterated that the media and the judiciary are institutions inhabiting separate spheres and their functions do not overlap. One cannot and must not use the other for discharge of its functions. It was observed that media should only engage in acts of journalism and not act as a special agency for the court. The impermissibility of freedom of speech and expression amounting to interference with the administration of justice due to the prejudicial nature of certain media coverage is highlighted through this paper.

• media trial
• fourth pillar
• click-bait journalism
• miscarriage of justice

Research Paper

Information

International Journal of Law Management and Humanities, Volume 4, Issue 2, Page 267 - 272

Creative Commons

This is an Open Access article, distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution -NonCommercial 4.0 International (CC BY-NC 4.0) (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0/), which permits remixing, adapting, and building upon the work for non-commercial use, provided the original work is properly cited.

Copyright © IJLMH 2021

I. Introduction

Media is considered to be the fourth pillar of democracy, after Legislature, Executive and Judiciary. Media as fourth pillar was coined by Thomas Caryle.

A responsible press is the handmaiden of effective judicial administration [1] . The press does not simply publish information about cases and trials but subjects the entire hierarchy of the administration of justice (police, prosecutors, lawyers, judges, courts), as well as the judicial processes, to public scrutiny. Free and robust reporting, criticism and debate contribute to public understanding of the rule of law, and to a better comprehension of the entire justice system. It also helps improve the quality of that system by subjecting it to the cleansing effect of exposure and public accountability. “Sunlight” as Justice Brandeis once said “is the best of disinfectants, electric light the most efficient policeman.” [2]

II. Laws governing media in india

There was regulation for Press until the British East India Company began ruling a portion of India in 1757 after the Battle of Plassey. The enactment of the Press and Registration of Books Act, 1867 was a very significant event in the field of laws governing Media. The aforementioned Act is still in force and the same was enacted to regulate the printing press along with periodicals which contained news, further the objective of the act was to preserve copies of books and for the registration of Books.

In 1869-70, when Media played a huge rule during the Wahabi Conspiracy, Sedition was incorporated as an offence as Section 124 A in the Indian Penal Code, 1870 wherein exciting or even attempting to excite any feeling of disaffection/feeling of enmity to the Government was labelled as an offence which as of today, is punishable with imprisonment of life to which fine maybe added. In pursuant to the above, the Dramatics Performances Act, 1876 was brought into force so as keep a check on public dramatic performances which had the possibility of provoking people against the Government. When the then Government sensed the press becoming bold by use of their Indian Language, so as to ascertain and achieve “better control” of the language press, the Vernacular Press Act, 1878 was enacted and brought into force.

In 1851 the telegraph was introduced, pursuant to which the Indian Telegraph Act was enforced in 1885. Consequently, the then Government in 1908 passed the Newspaper (Incitement to Offences) Act which empowered the local authorities to take an action against editor of any newspaper wherein it was suspected/observed that the articles contained in the newspaper, had the tendency to incite rebellion. Subsequently, the Press Act, 1910 was enforced wherein the Government was authorised/empowered to claim an amount under the garb of security from any Newspaper. In furtherance, to the aforementioned act, the Government enacted/passed the Copyright Act ,1957 and the Cinematograph Act in 1952.

Lately, the Right to Information Act was introduced in 2005 and the implementation of the same has stretched out the freedom of press which made India a liberal country, when it comes to Freedom of Press. There are numerous laws that control and regulate the performance of Press in India. The Constitution of India,1950 has not laid down any specific provision for the Freedom of Press separately but the same can be derived from Article 19(1)(a) of the Constitution of India,1950 which guarantees Freedom of Speech and Expression to the citizens of India. Article 19(1) (a) of the Constitution of India 1950

‘Trial by media’ is a phrase popular in the late 20th century and early 21st century to describe the impact of television and newspaper coverage on a person’s reputation by creating a widespread perception of guilt or innocence before, or after, a verdict in a court of law. In recent times there have been numerous instances in which media has conducted the trial of an accused and has passed the verdict even before the court passes its judgment. Some famous criminal cases that would have gone unpunished but for the intervention of media, are  Priyadarshini Mattoo case ,  Jessica Lal case ,  Nitish Katara murder case  and  Bijal Joshi rape case [3] .

III. Judicial decisions

The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the many cases has ruled that freedom of press is a fundamental right covered by the right to freedom of speech and expression. In the case of  Brij Bhushan v. State of Delhi [4] , held that in India under Art.19(1)(a) freedom of speech and expression authoritatively includes the freedom of press print and electronic media and affecting the right of freedom of speech and expression.

And in the case of  Romesh Thapar v. State of Madras [5] , Supreme Court held that freedom of speech or freedom of press lays the foundation of all the democratic organization without political discussion, no public education is possible which is necessary for proper functioning of popular government. In the case of  India Express Newspaper Ltd. v. Union of India   [6] , Justice Venklatrana of Supreme Court of India sated that the freedom of press is an essential for the proper functioning of the democracy.

In LIC v. Manubbai Shah [7] , the Supreme Court reiterated that the freedom of speech and expression must be broadly construed to include the freedom to circulate one’s views by word of mouth, or in writing, or through audio visual media. This includes the right to propagate one’s views through the print or other media. The Apex Court observed: “Freedom to air one’s view is the lifeline of any democratic institution and any attempt to stifle, or suffocate, or gag this right would sound a death knell to democracy and would hold usher in autocracy or dictatorship.”

In the case of  Printers (Mysore) Ltd. v. Assistant Commercial Trade Officer [8] , the Supreme Court of India held that though freedom of press is not under Fundamental Right, but it is an implicit in the freedom of speech and expression. In R.Rajagopal v. State of Tamil Nadu [9] , the Supreme Court held that neither the Government nor the officials had any authority to impose a prior restraint upon publication of a material on the ground that such material was likely to be defamatory of them. In Re: Vijay Kumar [10] , the Supreme Court recognized the scope of freedom of press as an essential prerequisite of a democratic form of democratic form of government and regarded it as  the mother of all other liberties in democratic society.

In the matter of  Sahara India Real Estate Corpn. Ltd. v. SEBI [11] the Supreme Court discussed postponement orders i.e., judicial orders restraining the media on reporting regarding matters. This is done with the motive of ensuring proper administration of justice and fairness of trial. Another important aspect highlighted was that even in matters where fair and accurate reporting takes place there is also a real and substantial risk of serious prejudice to connected trials. Also, postponement orders are also a means to avoid contempt. This is for the protection of media lest it commit contempt in its zeal to pursue a story. These orders are also a useful tool to balance conflicting public interests in terms of both safeguarding the sanctity of the judicial process and the right of freedom of speech and expression being exercised by the media. The Supreme Court had another word of caution in the matter of Satish bhushan Bariyar v. State of Maharashtra [12]   held that if media trial is a possibility, sentencing by media cannot be ruled out.

IV. Media and their influence in society

The paid news which is given by any political party or any other big organisation easily deviate the media from the real objective and the media being the mirror to the world or being an eye opener, becomes a puppet in the hand of powers. Hence media being working for the people, by the people and of the people become for the sponsor, by the sponsor and of the sponsor. Sometimes these issues give birth to the media trials in which the media proof someone guilty before the judgement of the court.

In the matter of  State of Maharashtra v. Rajendra Jawanmal Gandhi [13] the Supreme Court while considering the issue of sentencing observed that a trial by press, electronic media or public agitation is the very antithesis of the rule of law. This may very well lead to miscarriage of justice and therefore, a Judge should guard himself against any such pressure and should strictly be guided by the rules of law. Parties have a constitutional right to have a fair trial in the court of law, by an impartial tribunal, uninfluenced by newspaper dictation or popular Glamour.

In the Sheena Bohra Murder Case, the eyes of media have pierced the personal life of the main accused Indirani Mukherjee which was fully accused by the media. Every aspect of her personal life and character was in public lens of examination via media. There have been numerous instances in which media has conducted trials of an accused and they had been verdict even before the judgement passed by the judiciary.

In 20th century a famous celebrity Fatty Arbuvckle was proved guilty by the media trial but he was proved not guilty by the Hon’ble Court but due to the media trial his entire career and his reputation was against him due to all the wrong media coverage. In the case of Arushi Talwar Murder Case the media has verdict that the murder has been done by her parents Rajesh Talwar and Nupur Talwar, he was not guilty but the media proved him guilty.

The Law Commission in its 200th report, Trial by Media: Free Speech versus Fair Trial Under Criminal Procedure (Amendment to the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 ), has recommended a law to debar media from reporting anything prejudicial to the rights of the accused from time to arrest to investigation and trial in criminal proceedings. [14]

On November 2006, the former Chief Justice of India Y K Sabharwal expressed his views on media trials as:

According to law a accused is presumed to be innocent till proven guilty in the court of law, and is entitled to be a fair trial. So, it is legitimate to demand that nobody can be allowed to prejudge or prejudice one’s case? Why should judges be swayed by public opinion?

The Supreme Court reiterated that the media and the judiciary are institutions inhabiting separate spheres and their functions do not overlap. One cannot and must not use the other for discharge of its functions. It was observed that media should only engage in acts of journalism and not act as a special agency for the court. The impermissibility of freedom of speech and expression amounting to interference with the administration of justice due to the prejudicial nature of certain media coverage was also highlighted. [15]

Attorney General of India, K.K.Venugopal while appearing in his personal capacity in the 2009 contempt of court case against lawyer Prashant Bhushan, said that the manner in which court news is being reported by media has serious implications [16]   has been held to quote “Today electronic and print media are freely commenting on pending cases in an attempt to influence judges and public perception. This is doing great damage to the institution,”.

To conclude, Freedom of press has always been a cherished right in all democratic countries and the press has rightly been described as the Fourth Pillar of Democracy. Media can be regarded as the fourth pillar of democracy until and unless the transparency will be there and in this era the media is considered as the daily necessity because the day starts with the media and ends with the same whether its social media or print media or electronic media. Upon a collective assessment of the judgments of the Supreme Court of India on the aspect of media trial it is clear that the risk that they pose is real. The State and the Fourth Estate have a responsibility to defer to each other’s respective domains. While the State should be circumspect regarding any censorship or penal action against the media, at the same time the media should refrain from any unwarranted transgressions. Media trials entail the possibility of subverting administration of justice right from the stage of investigation, trial and finally sentencing. In today’s age of click-bait journalism aimed at satisfying the increasingly short attention span of viewers there exists a subtle by clearly defined line which should not be crossed. Factual narration in itself is safe, however done with a pre-disposed view towards guilt or innocence without any official indictment is clear case of overreach by the media.

[1] State of Maharashtra v/s Rajendrajawanmal Gandhi., (1997) 8 SCC 386

[2] Nariman, Fali S., Are Impediments to Free Expression in the Interest of Justice, CIJL Yearbook, Vol 4, 1995.

[3] http://docs.manupatra.in/newsline/articles/Upload/0158AEEE-1A16-473C-A41A-DB93A66000EB.pdf

[4] Brij Bhushan v. State of Delhi AIR 1950 SC 129

[5] Romesh Thapar v. State of Madras AIR 1950 SC 124

[6] India Express Newspaper Ltd. v. Union of India  AIR 1986 SC 515

[7] LIC v. Manubbai Shah (1992) 3 SCC 637.

[8] Printers (Mysore) Ltd. v. Assistant Commercial Trade Officer1994 SCR (1) 682

[9] R.Rajagopal v. State of Tamil Nadu AIR 1995 SC 264

[10] (1996) 6 SCC 466

[11] Sahara India Real Estate Corpn. Ltd. v. SEBI; (2012) 10 SCC 603

[12] Satish bhushan Bariyar v. State of Maharashtra; (2009) 6 SCC 498

[13] State of Maharashtra v. RajendraJawanmal Gandhi; (1997) 8 SCC 386

[14] http://docs.manupatra.in/newsline/articles/Upload/0158AEEE-1A16-473C-A41A-DB93A66000EB.pdf

[15] R.K. Anand v. Delhi High Court; (2009) 8 SCC 106 

SEE ALSO: M.P. Lohia v. State of W.B.; (2005) 2 SCC 686.

[16] https://www.hindustantimes.com/india-news/media-trial-causing-great-damage-to-judiciary-attorney-general-kk-venugopal/story-XXroXLeMrdHYAKP85SjsgL.h

Total number of HTML views: 24508

Total number of pdf downloaded: 1061, open access.

http://doi.one/10.1732/IJLMH.26050

Recent content

1 a critical analysis of child labour in india.

Volume: 7 Issue : 3 Page: 987 - 991

2 An Analysis of Insider Trading Regulations: A Comparative Study of India, USA & U.K.

By Vedansh Saklani and Dr. Lakshmi Priya Vinjamuri

Volume: 7 Issue : 3 Page: 979 - 986

3 The Thin Line between Aggression and Crime in Sports: A Legal Analysis

By Prakhar Kakkar and Dr Anil Kumar Dixit

Volume: 7 Issue : 3 Page: 964 - 978

4 Alternative Dispute Resolution: Types, Benefits and Drawback

By Pinki Krishnarao Churad

Volume: 7 Issue : 3 Page: 951 - 963

5 A Comprehensive Examination of Data Protection Laws in India vis-à-vis Social Media Platforms

By Vaishali and Dr. Shammi Kesh Roy

Volume: 7 Issue : 3 Page: 940 - 950

International Journal of Law Management & Humanities

Typically replies within 24 hours.

Any questions related to the journal or your submission?

WhatsApp Us

🟢 We will respond within 24 hours, maybe less.

WhatsApp us.

Academia.edu no longer supports Internet Explorer.

To browse Academia.edu and the wider internet faster and more securely, please take a few seconds to  upgrade your browser .

Enter the email address you signed up with and we'll email you a reset link.

• We're Hiring!
• Help Center

TRIAL BY MEDIA: CONCEPT AND PHENOMENON.

A media shackled by its government is an unhealthy thing; however, a media allowed to run its mouth in an unaccountable manner may prove to be even more dangerous. While there must be punishments for the heinous crimes committed every day, the process of punishment should not encroach on the right of the accused for a free and fair trial in a Court of law. The problem of media trials is becoming more and more prevalent today. This article tries to analyse the problem of media trials by studying the various materials available on the topic, such as newspaper articles on the most famous media trials of India. I have come to the conclusion, after a fair analysis, that while the freedom of the press must be maintained in a country governed by the principle of ?rule of law?, there must be a certain restraint to prevent the media from encroaching on the sole jurisdiction of the Courts of law i.e., the administration of justice.

Related Papers

Shubham Srivastava

anamika ray , Ankuran Dutta

Media intervention in under trial cases has become very normal affairs in the society. Judges are compelled somehow to take decision according to the follow up of Media criticism. For which, declaration of verdict by media becomes the final verdict in trial courts especially in many high profile cases. Reincarnated as public court, media separately starts investigation and forms public opinion. It is obvious that to run the democracy very smoothly, a free and healthy media functionary is needed. But most of the time the freedom of expression is engrossed the controversy by the sub clause (2), article 19 of the Constitution of India. It does not embrace the freedom to contempt of court. But according to the demand of current situation, media significantly involves when justice is totally denied or delayed. Though media helps in social, political changes but sometimes it is also seen frequently that media involves into the money making business. Running behind the circulation and TVT, media makes rather covers the news. The journey from ‘mission to profession to creation’ or in other word ‘passion to fashion’ endorses the selling of human values. This paper is a humble effort to analyze the need of media involvement and playing a crucial role in establishing the justice in the society.

Bidisha Barman

Prof. Dr. Somali Chakraborty

Of late, the news coverage is more sensible than what it used to be at the beginning of the last decade. The contents of the fiction and nonfiction sections viz. the entertainment programmes and news sections respectively; are reflections of the various issues and consequences of real life carks. Most importantly, wherever or whenever the administration of the country had failed to accomplish its duty, the media has intervened. Be it the reopening of a legal case for an impartial decision (Jessica Lal case) or follow up of the financial and political scandals & corruption (Fodder scam, 2G spectrum scam), or speeding up the lingering cases for final verdicts (Ajmal Kasab- 26/11 convict case). Thus Indian media is successful in highlighting the facts and facets of to the common mass, majority of people or the ‘hoi polloi’ as acclaimed in Greek. It has also portrayed the wrath of the common public to such an extent, that, the government has often been compelled to step up or speed up the process. One of such more recent and effective methods is trial by media- a phenomenon not seen before the 20th century but has certainly grown into a colossal structured protest movement from a monstrous combine of public prosecution and judicial ignorance.

International Res Jour Managt Socio Human

I would rather have a completely free press with all the dangers involved in the wrong use of that freedom than a suppressed or regulated press.‖1 Trial by Media is a phrase popular in the late 20th century and early 21st century to describe the impact of television and newspaper coverage on a person's reputation by creating a widespread perception of guilt regardless of any verdict in a court of law. India is a democratic state and democratic indicates that everyone has right to speak and express their motion according law. Moreover there has to be active participation of public in all the affairs of governments and state. Media is considered as pillar of democracy. Now a day media playing vital role in changing the opinion of public and day to day discuss the recent issues like crime, corruption, political, economy finance etc. and through this enable them to consider forming broad opinion in which they are being managed, tackled and administered by the government and their functionaries. Media is requiring protecting the privacy of individual. But in the interest of democracy, it is better to have self-regulated and self-disciplined media in comparison to a media regulated by the court and the state.

JAVID AHMAD BAGTH

To understand the antagonism of free trial and free media one needs to contemplate the developments of court and media and its present situation. There exists a typical connection between the Judiciary and the media and both assume an admiring share to each other where man is the principal point of their universe. Both the judiciary and media are employed with the same obligation; to find reality, to maintain the democratic based esteems and to manage social, political and financial issues. Media has been described by many as the "eyes and ears of the general public". Media intervention in under trial cases has turned out to be exceptionally typical in the general public. Judges are somehow constrained in some way or another to take choice as indicated by the follow up of Media feedback because of which, an assertion of a decision by media turns into the last decision in trial courts particularly in numerous high profile cases. Revived as an open court, media independently begins investigation and form the general supposition in the minds of the general public. It is obvious that to run the democratic form of governance easily and smoothly, a free and sound media functionary is required. But if we critically analyse the provisions enshrined under sub-clause 2, article 19 of the Constitution of India. We could see that the freedom of expression enjoyed by the media fraternity is usually taken to mean in a much more advanced way. That is to say that this freedom of expression by the media is not an absolute one and it could be said that it doesn't promote the flexibility to commit contempt of court. This paper is a modest push to discover the need and extent of media inclusion in the cases which are subjudice before the courts of Law and assuming a significant part thereto in setting up the fairness and justice in the general public.

Prashasti Singh

Where right to freedom of speech and expression forms a part of the basic structure of the Constitution of India, its aspects have been broadened to the include the media and even commercial advertisements in its purview. However, with the passage of time and realisation of this freedom so bestowed upon the media, its widespread encroachment has started to be felt by the aggrieved general mass and the judiciary. With the observance of this right, a time has come when the media controls the mindset of the public unparalleled. In recent years, this has started to show, more than ever, in the popular judicial trials of the country. Even before the accused is convicted in the courtroom, his life is turned into a national drama show... discussing and debating on his actions and his past by the media. Before you know it, you find your rational judgement ebbing away. A perception of the trial, the accused and the victim forms in your mind and this perception usually does not go away even with the judiciary ruling against it. This paper discusses this worldwide phenomenon of media trial, as it is called, and how it affects the jurors while presiding the trial, along with its effects on the lives of the persons involved in the trial and where the line between the freedom of speech and contempt of court places.

Strictlylegal

Pritam Banikk

This article briefly discusses the rights and responsibilities of media and its functioning as a fourth pillar in India’s democracy. A major part of this story highlights the free run of Media trials and how fatal it is to the freedom of speech and expression. Further, a few quotes have been extracted from various judgments of the High Courts and the Supreme Court to bring a common intention of criticism for unwarranted media trials. Lastly, a recommendation on ways to proceed to strengthen the existing structure of the fourth pillar.

Media, which is a way for communicating information from person to person, is a very important part of the modern society. The freedom of thought and expression, and the freedom of the press are not only valuable freedoms in themselves but are basic to a democratic form of Government which proceeds on the theory that problems of the Government can be solved by the free exchange of thought and by public discussion of the various issues facing the nation. Recognizing the importance of the dissemination of information and of the role of the press/media in the process, most countries including India, have accepted the freedom of speech and expression, which includes the freedom of the press/media as an important constitutional right. The freedom is guaranteed not only by the constitution of various countries but also by several international instruments, such as Universal Declaration of Human Rights 1948, European Convention on Human Rights and fundamental freedoms, International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights etc

Journal of Xi'an University of Architecture & Technology

Amit Sharma

Mass media is considered as a guard dog for the Judiciary and other pillars of democracy. Mass media support in the fair trial of court proceeding and give proper atmosphere in the deliverance of justice to all. The present study is descriptive in nature and deals with the survey method. The data is collected with the help of a questionnaire form the journalist and lawyers. The result indicates that almost half of the respondent believes that the media helps to make a case strong and can influence public opinion as well as a judicial opinion.

RELATED PAPERS

Isaac Donoso

Konstantine Zelator

Angela Nuovo

Molecular and cellular …

P. Vigano'

Arq Bras Oftalmol

Marinho Scarpi

Hermann Prossinger

Journal of oleo science

Kanjiro Torigoe

Cosmin Toader

Revista de Biología Tropical

Alexis Rodriguez

Max L. Margolis ז”ל

EMBO reports

Anand Bachhawat

Physical Review C

Naeem akhtar Khan

Adelia T S A B I T A H Hasna

Víctor Jácome Calvache

Journal of Asian Scientific Research

Deva Kumar S

Tempo da ciência

Juliane Cristina Helanski Cardoso

制作纽曼大学文凭学历证书买Newman文凭/87527357薇Q 做Newman毕业证成绩单仿冒制作文凭学历办Newman录取通知书offer留信网学历认证文凭学位证真实认证、GPA修改，Newman University

Ágnes Dárdai

Leon Glicksman

Frontiers in Psychology

Erica Lofstrom

2018 IEEE International Conference on Software Quality, Reliability and Security Companion (QRS-C)

Tugkan Tuglular

Ivana Radić

Pontificia Universidad Católica del Perú

Maria Del Rosario Salcedo Chumbez

RELATED TOPICS

•   We're Hiring!
•   Help Center
• Find new research papers in:
• Health Sciences
• Earth Sciences
• Cognitive Science
• Mathematics
• Computer Science
• Academia ©2024

We will keep fighting for all libraries - stand with us!

Internet Archive Audio

• This Just In
• Grateful Dead
• Old Time Radio
• 78 RPMs and Cylinder Recordings
• Audio Books & Poetry
• Computers, Technology and Science
• Music, Arts & Culture
• News & Public Affairs
• Spirituality & Religion
• Radio News Archive

• Flickr Commons
• Occupy Wall Street Flickr
• NASA Images
• Solar System Collection
• Ames Research Center

• All Software
• Old School Emulation
• MS-DOS Games
• Historical Software
• Classic PC Games
• Software Library
• Kodi Archive and Support File
• Vintage Software
• CD-ROM Software
• CD-ROM Software Library
• Software Sites
• Tucows Software Library
• Shareware CD-ROMs
• Software Capsules Compilation
• CD-ROM Images
• ZX Spectrum
• DOOM Level CD

• Smithsonian Libraries
• FEDLINK (US)
• Lincoln Collection
• American Libraries
• Canadian Libraries
• Universal Library
• Project Gutenberg
• Children's Library
• Biodiversity Heritage Library
• Books by Language
• Additional Collections

• Prelinger Archives
• Democracy Now!
• Occupy Wall Street
• TV NSA Clip Library
• Animation & Cartoons
• Arts & Music
• Computers & Technology
• Cultural & Academic Films
• Ephemeral Films
• Sports Videos
• Videogame Videos
• Youth Media

Search the history of over 866 billion web pages on the Internet.

Mobile Apps

• Wayback Machine (iOS)
• Wayback Machine (Android)

Browser Extensions

Archive-it subscription.

• Explore the Collections
• Build Collections

Save Page Now

Capture a web page as it appears now for use as a trusted citation in the future.

Please enter a valid web address

• Donate Donate icon An illustration of a heart shape

An essay on the trial by jury

Bookreader item preview, share or embed this item, flag this item for.

• Graphic Violence
• Explicit Sexual Content
• Hate Speech
• Misinformation/Disinformation
• Marketing/Phishing/Advertising
• Misleading/Inaccurate/Missing Metadata

No copyright page found.

plus-circle Add Review comment Reviews

3 Favorites

DOWNLOAD OPTIONS

For users with print-disabilities

IN COLLECTIONS

Uploaded by [email protected] on October 23, 2017

SIMILAR ITEMS (based on metadata)

Find anything you save across the site in your account

The Historic Trump Court Cases That We Cannot See

By Neal Katyal

Over the past month, in two courtrooms some two hundred and fifty miles apart, the government was hearing arguments in two of the most consequential court cases in American history. In New York, at the Manhattan Criminal Courthouse, a judge was presiding over the first criminal trial of a former U.S. President. Meanwhile, in Washington D.C., at the United States Supreme Court, the nine Justices were mulling over a grave question of constitutional law—whether a former President is immune from criminal prosecution.

The two courtrooms could hardly be more different, with the polished white marble of the U.S. Supreme Court contrasting with the more ramshackle wooden court furnishings in Manhattan. And yet both rooms are similarly opaque, with most Americans unable to see what’s happening inside of either one. Cameras are prohibited, and so the only way to observe the proceedings is to wait in line outside, in hopes of snagging one of the few seats reserved for members of the public. (The Supreme Court saves room for fifty public spectators; the Manhattan Criminal Courthouse has been able to accommodate around ten.) This is despite the fact that the American people pay for these courtrooms with their tax dollars, and the fact that prosecutions are brought in their name. The New York case is called the People v. Donald J. Trump.

Like grownups who abstain from tequila because of a bad experience with it in high school, the bans on cameras are the lingering effects of some early issues with courtroom photography. In 1935, Bruno Hauptmann was put on trial in New Jersey for kidnapping and murdering the nearly two-year-old son of the aviator Charles Lindbergh. At that trial, cameras were allowed under certain conditions: they could film during trial recesses but not while witnesses were testifying. And yet camera footage of the trial testimony leaked, and Hauptmann’s trial became a media circus. This defiance of court restrictions, paired with the bright flashes in the courtroom and the general mayhem caused by the cameramen, ultimately led the trial judge to ban photography for the rest of the proceedings. Many states followed suit.

Once television became ubiquitous, in the nineteen-fifties, the prohibitions on cameras began to seem antiquated. Some states rolled back their anti-camera legislation, and, today, most permit some form of audiovisual coverage in court, whether it be still photography during testimony, audio recordings, or live broadcasts on television. Federal appellate courts, too, permit live broadcasts, as does the International Criminal Court. But not so New York. In 1952, the state adopted a statute still in place today, banning all cameras in the courtroom—a law so broad that one court-reform organization, the Fund for Modern Courts, has called it “an extreme outlier among the states.” The U.S. Supreme Court, for its part, prohibits cameras but makes live audio of oral arguments available. That puts the Court in better audiovisual stead than New York, and yet there’s a lot that happens in court that cannot be captured by either audio or transcript.

As a member of the Supreme Court bar, I was able to sit at the front of the courtroom for the arguments in Trump v. United States, the Presidential-immunity case. I could see Justice Amy Coney Barrett’s face twist into an expression of utter incredulity as Trump’s lawyer D. John Sauer claimed that a President sending a Navy SEAL team to assassinate a political rival was not an indictable crime. I was able to watch Michael Dreeben, the lawyer for the special counsel Jack Smith, painstakingly describe the counts in one of the federal indictments against Trump, relating to his abuse of the Justice Department. Dreeben outlined how Trump tried to pressure top Justice Department officials into sending letters to state legislatures expressing doubt about the election counts, and how Trump threatened to fire those officials if they didn’t comply. After Dreeben relayed this information, almost two hours into the proceedings, I could see the Court dynamics shift. The Justices began to listen far more closely to him, sitting up in their chairs.

I’ve personally seen more than four hundred oral arguments at the Supreme Court. Why bother trudging all the way to One First Street when I could just listen to audio recordings or read a transcript? Because neither is any sort of substitute for watching the way in which these arguments are delivered, and for observing the dynamics on display in the courtroom. The Court itself isn’t satisfied with just reading a bunch of written words in briefs; it insists on seeing advocates deliver their arguments in person. More than fifty Americans should get that same basic opportunity.

The judiciary is the least democratic of the three branches of the government. Supreme Court Justices, who have lifetime tenure, are appointed, not elected. And so they are required to justify their decisions in ways that elected officials are not. President Joe Biden can sign an executive order without explaining his reasoning behind it. (It might cause a P.R. crisis, but it’s certainly within his power to do this.) By contrast, when the Justices overturn a longtime legal precedent, or when they create a new one, whether major or minor, they must issue written opinions explaining their decision-making process. This process might be as significant as the opinion itself. Oral arguments are, undoubtedly, a major part of that process, and yet most Americans are barely even aware that oral arguments are happening—let alone what arguments are being made—creating a situation in which the public receives a pile of controversial opinions, every June, with little context. One can imagine that if oral arguments were televised, Americans might spend the year doing what the Justices do: thinking through a bunch of complicated, nuanced questions before ultimately reaching their own conclusions.

The Court today is relying far too much on the idea that Americans are going to seek out audio feeds of oral arguments. This is unrealistic in an age of TV and Instagram. It’s not 1936, and Americans aren’t huddled around a radio in the family room. Without the visual component, it is unlikely that they are going to pay attention to the arguments in a Supreme Court case, even if the decision that’s eventually rendered may directly affect their lives. It would serve the Court well for Americans to be confronted with the same questions that are raised during oral arguments. It would also serve Americans well to see how the Court, which is increasingly seen as a politically motivated entity, is genuinely grappling with questions about governance, such as how to draw the line between an official Presidential act (like appointing a Cabinet member), and a private one (like taking a bribe from said Cabinet member).

The public is missing even more when it comes to Trump’s criminal trial in Manhattan, which, ironically, is all about whether Trump committed crimes in his efforts to keep information from the American people, in the run-up to the 2016 Presidential election. Last week, the adult-film actor Stormy Daniels went on the stand and told the full story of her relationship with Trump, from their initial sexual encounter, in 2006, to the hush-money agreement that she negotiated with Trump and his former lawyer Michael Cohen some ten years later. We were unable to watch her tell it, or to watch how she handled being cross-examined, in the same way that we were unable to watch Hope Hicks, a witness called by the government, tearfully testify about her old boss, or the former tabloid C.E.O. David Pecker speak to the dozens of stories that the National Enquirer has killed about Trump and other politicians over the years. We can read quotes published online, but it is much harder, from behind our computer screens, to read between the lines. Did Hope Hicks start crying because she felt bad about turning on Trump, or because she was overwhelmed by the trial, or because of something else? Different reporters have had different takes, but we’ve been denied the opportunity to watch her testimony and decide for ourselves. And, of course, we’ve been unable to observe the behavior of the defendant, Donald Trump: how he comports himself in the room, how he reacts to the testimony of witnesses, how he carries himself, and so much more. (Just imagine how different the O. J. Simpson “gloves don’t fit” testimony would have been, had it been reduced to a transcript—or even a highly descriptive newspaper article.) Journalists have done their best to describe what’s happening in the room, and yet even the most faithful retellings can be subjective, skewed by something as simple as where the writer was sitting in the courtroom, and what kind of view they may have had. Some reports, for example, say that Trump keeps falling asleep during the trial; others disagree.

On Monday, Cohen is on the stand—more important testimony that we will not see. There’s also a chance, albeit a small one, that Trump himself will eventually testify in the New York trial. If he does, the American people will not be able to witness some of the most significant trial testimony given in our lifetimes. And if he does not testify, cameras would be the only way for us to see Trump’s true reaction to the case being presented against him. Instead, the lack of cameras has catalyzed a lopsided spin cycle outside the courtroom. Trump leaves the courtroom each day, where the reporters waiting outside for him do have cameras, and he characterizes the proceedings in a gravely slanted way, which then gets broadcast on cable news. The lawyers for the prosecution cannot publicly grandstand like this; rules of prosecutorial ethics require them to make their arguments inside the courtroom, not outside of it. The result is a structural asymmetry, which isn’t just confined to the two sides of the court case. The characters appearing on the witness stand, from Daniels to Cohen, are all subject to innuendo and character attacks, with the public unable to fact-check how these individuals are portrayed by the media. The same goes for the Supreme Court. Don’t believe what I said about Justice Barrett’s facial expression during oral arguments? Tough luck, you can’t go back and check the video, because there isn’t one.

Even if one accepts these rules for a normal trial, you’d think that there’d be an exception for ones that are so clearly in the public interest. Trump is not just a former President but a candidate for President, and twenty-four per cent of Republicans say they would not vote for him if he were convicted of a felony by a jury. The immunity case, too, is of grave concern to the public, as the Justices are essentially deciding whether Trump’s other trials should move forward. The risk is of a double darkness—that a Supreme Court the American public cannot see will render a decision preventing Americans from even hearing the rest of evidence against Trump, by stopping his trials from taking place altogether.

What possible rationale can there be for having a courtroom placed out of view of the people who paid for it? To be sure, confidentiality is sometimes required, from the Constitutional Convention of 1787 to the modern-day jury room. But courtroom proceedings are, by their nature, meant to be transparent, centered on a fact-gathering and argumentation process. Expecting cameras in the courtroom is not unlike expecting body cameras to be worn by police officers, who, like judges, are sworn to uphold the rule of law.

Some fear that courtroom cameras will prompt witnesses to be intimidated and scared. I understand this concern; indeed, I once shared it. From 2020 to 2023, I was privileged to serve as special prosecutor in one of the most high-profile trials in modern history, the trial of Derek Chauvin for the murder of George Floyd . Up until this case, Minnesota had never televised a criminal trial. As prosecutors in the case, and in accordance with Minnesota law and practice, we requested that cameras be forbidden. We feared, in particular, for the safety and comfort of a seventeen-year-old witness, who had taken the video of Floyd’s murder.

The judge, fortunately, overruled us. Americans were able to see, with their own eyes, what happened in that courtroom. They could see the evidence that both sides were able to muster, examine Chauvin’s demeanor in court, and assess the credibility of the on-the-scene witnesses and medical experts. The result was public confidence in the outcome of the trial. When Chauvin was ultimately convicted, there were no mass riots or protests, despite speculation beforehand that either outcome would result in unrest. The trial underscored the importance of courtroom cameras, just as the initial video of Floyd’s murder, recorded by that young witness, was critical in drawing public attention to the incident in the first place.

There have been concerns, too, that televised legal proceedings create perverse incentives for lawyers and judges, who may be tempted to play for the public, and distort the truth-seeking function of the court. That is a possibility, although the democratic benefits strongly outweigh that risk, just as they do for Congress (televised) and the President (extensively televised). And the reverse is more likely, as courtroom participants are incentivized to act with greater care when their actions will be viewable by millions. In 2017, I argued against President Trump’s Muslim ban in the federal appeals court in Seattle, and the oral argument was covered on live television. If anything, the cameras induced us attorneys to be even more conscious of keeping the proceedings solemn. Ultimately, cameras would allow Americans to see what I get to see when I am in court: a bunch of judges who are trying their hardest to resolve difficult cases in a straightforward and honest way. Judge Juan Merchan, who is presiding over Trump’s criminal trial in Manhattan, is a perfect example. Those in the courtroom describe an even-keeled and balanced judge, but Trump goes out every day blasting him as a biased accomplice of President Biden. Televised proceedings would empower Americans to make these judgments for themselves.

The mechanism to fix all of this is not difficult to implement. Changing the rules in New York would likely require the state legislature to lift its ban on cameras, although it is conceivable that a court may try to do so on its own, as Minnesota did in the Chauvin case. Televising Supreme Court arguments would not even require legislation; it could be done by mere Court rule. And, should the Court not act, legislation has been introduced by Senators Chuck Grassley and Dick Durbin to force them to do so. The bill, known as the Cameras in the Courtroom Act, would require the Supreme Court to permit television coverage of oral arguments and other open sessions. It’s accompanied by another bill, the Sunshine in the Courtroom Act, which extends to all open federal court proceedings. Both bills are pieces of bipartisan legislation; Grassley and Durbin don’t agree on much, but they agree on this. Even the Justices themselves have, in other contexts, recognized the importance of governmental transparency in a democracy. The person who famously said that sunlight is the best disinfectant was none other than Justice Louis Brandeis. ♦

New Yorker Favorites

The day the dinosaurs died .

What if you started itching— and couldn’t stop ?

How a notorious gangster was exposed by his own sister .

Woodstock was overrated .

Diana Nyad’s hundred-and-eleven-mile swim .

Photo Booth: Deana Lawson’s hyper-staged portraits of Black love .

Fiction by Roald Dahl: “The Landlady”

Sign up for our daily newsletter to receive the best stories from The New Yorker .

By signing up, you agree to our User Agreement and Privacy Policy & Cookie Statement . This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.

By Jeannie Suk Gersen

By Susan B. Glasser

By Amy Davidson Sorkin

By Benjamin Wallace-Wells

• Skip to main content
• Keyboard shortcuts for audio player

TikTok challenges U.S. ban in court, calling it unconstitutional

Bobby Allyn

TikTok's suit is in response to a law passed by Congress giving ByteDance up to a year to divest from TikTok and find a new buyer, or face a nationwide ban. Kiichiro Sato/AP hide caption

TikTok's suit is in response to a law passed by Congress giving ByteDance up to a year to divest from TikTok and find a new buyer, or face a nationwide ban.

TikTok and its parent company on Tuesday filed a legal challenge against the United States over a law that President Biden signed last month outlawing the app nationwide unless it finds a buyer within a year.

In the petition filed in the Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit, the company said the legislation exceeds the bounds of the constitution and suppresses the speech of millions of Americans.

"Banning TikTok is so obviously unconstitutional, in fact, that even the Act's sponsors recognized that reality, and therefore have tried mightily to depict the law not as a ban at all, but merely a regulation of TikTok's ownership," according to the filing.

The law, passed through Congress at lightning speed, which caught many inside TikTok off guard, is intended to force TikTok to be sold to a non-Chinese company in nine months, with the possibility of a three month extension if a possible sale is in play.

Yet lawyers for TikTok say the law offers the company a false choice, since fully divesting from its parent company, ByteDance, is "simply not possible: not commercially, not technologically, not legally," the challenge states. "And certainly not on the 270-day timeline required by the Act."

Anupam Chander, a law professor at Georgetown University who specializes in technology regulations, said if TikTok loses this legal fight, it will likely shut down in the U.S.

"The problem for TikTok is that they have a parent company that has these obligation in China, but they're trying to live by free speech rules by the United States," Chander said in an interview. "The question is whether American courts will believe that that's even possible."

TikTok says law based on "speculative and analytically flawed concerns"

Lawmakers in Washington have long been suspicious of TikTok, fearing its Chinese owner could use the popular app to spy on Americans or spread dangerous disinformation.

But in the company's legal petition, lawyers for TikTok say invoking "national security" does not give the government a free pass to violate the First Amendment, especially, TikTok, argues, when no public evidence has been presented of the Chinese government using the app as a weapon against Americans.

Possible TikTok ban could be 'an extinction-level event' for the creator economy

According to the filing, the law is based on "speculative and analytically flawed concerns about data security and content manipulation — concerns that, even if grounded in fact, could be addressed through far less restrictive and more narrowly tailored means."

New DOJ Filing: TikTok's Owner Is 'A Mouthpiece' Of Chinese Communist Party

Constitutional scholars say there are few ways for the government to restrict speech in a way that would survive a legal challenge. One of those ways is if the government can demonstrate a national security risk. Also key, legal experts say, is the government showing the speech suppression was the least restrictive option on the table.

TikTok said Congress ignored less restrictive ways of addressing the government's national security concerns.

"If Congress can do this, it can circumvent the First Amendment by invoking national security and ordering the publisher of any individual newspaper or website to sell to avoid being shut down," the filing states. "And for TikTok, any such divestiture would disconnect Americans from the rest of the global community."

Since more than 90% of TikTok's users are outside of America, Georgetown's Chander said selling the U.S.-based app to a different owner would cannibalize its own business.

"You can't really create a TikTok U.S., while having a different company manage TikTok Canada," Chander said in an interview. "What you're doing essentially is creating a rival between two TikToks," he said. " It may be better to take your marbles out of the United States and hope to make money outside of the U.S., rather than sell it at a fire-sale price."

TikTok critics call app a 'spy balloon on your phone'

The filing sets off what could be the most important battle for TikTok. It has been fending off legal challenges to its existence since former President Trump first sought to ban the app through an executive order in the summer of 2020. That effort was blocked by federal courts.

Since then, Democrats and Republicans have shown a rare moment of unity around calls to pressure TikTok to sever its ties with ByteDance, the Beijing-based tech giant that owns the video-streaming app.

Trump's Ban On TikTok Suffers Another Legal Setback

Congress has never before passed legislation that could outright ban a wildly popular social media app, a gesture the U.S. government has criticized authoritarian nations for doing.

In the case of TikTok, however, lawmakers have called the app a "spy balloon on your phone," emphasizing how the Chinese government could gain access to the personal data of U.S. citizens.

Worries also persist in Washington that Beijing could influence the views of Americans by dictating what videos are boosted on the platform. That concern has only become heightened seven months before a presidential election.

Yet the fears so far indeed remain hypothetical.

There is no publicly available example of the Chinese government attempting to use TikTok as an espionage or data collection tool. And no proof that the Chinese government has ever had a hand over what TikTok's 170 million American users see every day on the app.

TikTok says it offers U.S. a plan that would shut app down if it violated agreement

TikTok, for its part, says it has invested $2 billion on a plan, dubbed Project Texas, to separate its U.S. operation from its Chinese parent company. It deleted all of Americans' data from foreign servers and relocated all of the data to servers on U.S. soil overseen by the Austin-based tech company Oracle.

While the plan was intended to build trust with U.S. lawmakers and users, reports surfaced showing that data was still moving between staff in California and Beijing.

In the filing on Tuesday, TikTok said it submitted an agreement to the Committee on Foreign Investment in the United States, which has been probing the app for five years, that would allow the U.S. to suspend TikTok if it violated terms set forth in a national security plan.

But, lawyers for TikTok say, the deal was swept aside, "in favor of the politically expedient and punitive approach," the petition states.

Mnuchin claims he will place a bid to buy TikTok, even though app is not for sale

Despite the new law giving TikTok the ultimatum of selling or being shut down, there are many questions around how the app could even be bought by another company or group of investors.

Former Treasury Secretary Steven Mnuchin told NPR on Monday, he is planning to assemble a group of investors to try to purchase TikTok without the app's algorithm.

Mnuchin, who declined to answer additional questions, said in between sessions at the Milken Institute Global Conference in Los Angeles that the proposal to buy the app is still in the works, but he would not say when it would be formally submitted.

One major obstacle in any possible sale of TikTok is a glaring problem: The app is not for sale.

TikTok Ban Averted: Trump Gives Oracle-Walmart Deal His 'Blessing'

Despite the new law in the U.S., ByteDance says it does not intend to let go of the service. Furthermore, winning the support of China would be necessary, and officials in Beijing are adamantly against any forced sale.

In 2020, amid the Trump administration's clamp down on the app, China added "content-recommendation algorithms" to its export-control list, effectively adding new regulations over how TikTok's all-powerful algorithm could ever be sold.

ByteDance, not TikTok, developed and controls the algorithm that determines what millions see on the app every day. The technology has become the envy of Silicon Valley, and no U.S. tech company has been able dislodge TikTok's firm hold on the short-form video market. Experts say key to its success is its highly engaging and hyper-personalized video-ranking algorithm.

The algorithm, which involves millions of lines of software code developed by thousands of engineers over many years, cannot be easily transferred to the U.S., even if China did allow it, TikTok's challenge states.

Lawyers for TikTok argue that "any severance [of the algorithm] would leave TikTok without access to the recommendation engine that has created a unique style and community that cannot be replicated on any other platform today."

The lies and insults of Michael Cohen, from the Trump trial transcript

The cross-examination of Michael Cohen, the key witness against Donald Trump, began Tuesday with Trump’s attorney quizzing Cohen over his past lies and seeking to portray him as driven by a desire for publicity and revenge.

Trump is facing multiple charges of falsifying business records to hide a hush money payment to adult-film actress Stormy Daniels in 2016. He has pleaded not guilty, and denies having sex with Daniels.

Cohen’s testimony is crucial for the prosecution’s case against the former president and presumptive 2024 Republican nominee. On Monday, he detailed to the jury the $130,000 payment he made to Daniels and the plan for his reimbursement.

Here are key moments from the start of Cohen’s cross-examination in the trial in New York, based on an early transcript and lightly edited for brevity and clarity. You can read past trial transcripts on our website .

The trial is not in session Wednesday; Cohen will be back on the stand Thursday.

Defense lawyer pushed Cohen on whether he lied to special counsel Robert S. Mueller III

Trump’s lawyer Todd Blanche used the cross-examination to paint Cohen as an unreliable witness and to question his credibility. In one of the more combative exchanges, Blanche pushed Cohen repeatedly on whether he lied to special counsel Robert S. Mueller III’s office in 2018 about a deal to license Trump’s name to a skyscraper in Moscow, during the investigation into whether Russia interfered in the 2016 election.

Todd Blanche, defense attorney: Now, they also asked you about the Trump Moscow project, and you lied to them; right?

Cohen: Yes. The information I gave was not accurate.

Blanche: So, is “not accurate” information a lie?

Cohen: Sure.

Cohen persisted in calling the information he gave “inaccurate” and not truthful, saying at one point that he would not characterize it as a “lie.” Ultimately, Blanche got Cohen to concede.

Blanche: But, you’re not testifying today that that information was a lie?

Cohen: Sure. I’ll say it’s a lie.

Blanche: Well —

Cohen: I’ll say it’s a lie.

Blanche then quizzed Cohen on whether he recalled lying about anything else apart from the Moscow project.

Blanche: Do you recall lying about anything else or were you only lying about that? Or being inaccurate? Whatever word.

Cohen: I — I don’t know. I’d have to refresh my memory to see what the document is, but I specifically recall the number of times that I claimed to have spoken to Mr. Trump, which I was doing for his benefit and, in essence, at his direction.

Blanche quizzed Cohen on his profane social media attacks on Trump

Blanche began his cross-examination asking about a derogatory reference Cohen used for him on TikTok after trial began in April. Then he shifted focus to Cohen’s often-profane attacks on Trump.

Blanche: You referred to President Trump as a “Dictator Douche Bag,” didn’t you?

Cohen: Sounds like something I said.

Blanche pressed further asking Cohen if he recalled saying he hoped Trump would be jailed “like an animal.”

Cohen: I recall saying that.

Blanche sought to use Cohen’s social media rhetoric to depict him as publicity-hungry and vengeful. The defense lawyer brought up Cohen’s earlier statements lavishing praise on Trump to highlight his about-face and to portray him as being “obsessed” with the former president.

Blanche: On your first podcast, “Mea Culpa,” you referred to President Trump as a boorish cartoon misogynist, didn’t you?

Cohen: It sounds like something I would say.

Blanche asked if Cohen continued to attack Trump similarly through 2020, including name-calling him as “a Cheeto-dusted cartoon villain.”

Cohen: That also sounds like something I said.

Cohen’s answers to Blanche were at times indecisive, in contrast to the simple and direct answers he often gave to prosecutors.

Blanche: You also said in that same podcast, did you not, that President Trump needs to wear handcuffs and to do the perp walk, people will not be satisfied until this man is sitting inside the cell; do you recall saying that?

Cohen: I don’t recall saying that, but I wouldn’t put it past me.

Prosecutors gave Cohen a chance to tell jury his reasons for past lies

Anticipating questions from the defense on Cohen’s history, prosecutors in the morning questioned Cohen to allow him a chance to explain his checkered past ahead of the cross-examination. In 2018, Cohen pleaded guilty to multiple crimes including lying to Congress, tax evasion, making a false statement to a bank and campaign finance violations.

Cohen replied in the affirmative on Tuesday morning when prosecutor Susan Hoffinger asked whether he continued to protect Trump while serving as the personal counsel to the president.

Susan Hoffinger, prosecution attorney: And during the time that you served as personal counsel to the president, did you continue to lie for him?

Cohen: Yes.

Hoffinger: Why did you do that?

Cohen: Out of loyalty and in order to protect him.

Cohen told the jury he lied to the Congress about Trump’s Moscow real estate project in 2017.

Cohen: Because I was staying on Mr. Trump’s message that there was no Russia-Russia-Russia and, again, in coordination with the Joint Defense Team, that’s what was preferred.

Hoffinger asked Cohen about a 2018 letter to the Federal Election Commission about the $130,000 payout to Daniels. The letter stated that Cohen used his personal funds to pay Daniels and was not directly or indirectly reimbursed.

Hoffinger: Was that statement false or misleading?

Cohen: Misleading.

The letter, Cohen said, was misleading as it denied the involvement of the Trump Organization and campaign but omitted mentioning Trump himself. He said the letter had been intended to be misleading, and was then asked why.

Cohen: In order to protect Mr. Trump. To stay on message. To demonstrate my continued loyalty.

Stormy Daniels testifies she had sex with Trump, defense attacks her credibility

• Medium Text

'ONLY WAY YOU'RE GETTING OUT OF THE TRAILER PARK'

SATIN PAJAMAS AND A SPANKING

Sign up here.

Reporting by Jack Queen and Luc Cohen in New York and Andy Sullivan in Washington; Editing by Noeleen Walder and Howard Goller

Our Standards: The Thomson Reuters Trust Principles. New Tab , opens new tab

Thomson Reuters

Reports on the New York federal courts. Previously worked as a correspondent in Venezuela and Argentina.

Legal correspondent specializing in politically charged cases.

Andy covers politics and policy in Washington. His work has been cited in Supreme Court briefs, political attack ads and at least one Saturday Night Live skit.

World Chevron

Canada's Security Intelligence chief warns that China can use TikTok to spy on users, CBC reports

The head of Canada's Security Intelligence Service warned Canadians against using video app TikTok, saying data gleaned from its users "is available to the government of China," CBC News reported on Friday.