In our society, situations periodically arise when one or another public figure stands up for a participant in the trial or, conversely, “runs over” him. At this time, voices are heard that citizens do not have the right to discuss trials before the court’s decision (verdict), as well as after.
I don’t agree with that.
The right to discuss the actions of judges, in my opinion, is a fundamental right of citizens of a democratic country. It follows organically from the sacred right to freedom of speech in general. There should be no taboo topics in a free society. This right applies not only to the courts, but also to all State bodies. Neither the court , nor the Government, nor the Parliament should be shielded from criticism of their actions. Both during the decision-making process and after it.
The principle of “court decisions are not discussed” or “Government decisions are not discussed”, or even “presidential decisions are not discussed” is acceptable with respect to employees of these government agencies or subordinates of the President, and even then only during the period of work in the civil service. If a person does not agree with the actions of a government agency or a manager, he can resign and then publicly criticize him.
The ban on discussing the actions of courts and other state bodies means recognition of the infallibility of these bodies, that is, their almost divine origin. This was possible only somewhere among the Inca tribe or in Egypt under the Pharaohs, but not in a modern enlightened society.
On the other hand, it seems to me that an attempt to prohibit the influence of the public on the courts is tantamount to recognizing the unprofessionalism and moral instability of judges. That is, it is assumed that judges may not withstand public pressure and make a decision to please the crowd, and not in accordance with the law. But in this case, in my opinion, efforts should be directed to the appropriate work with judges, rather than to protect them from the public.
P.S. The only exception to this rule is the inadmissibility of disclosure by the participants of the process of confidential information that has become known to them by virtue of their professional activities. But this issue is already regulated by law and, it seems to me, does not cause disagreements in society.