Next week (we can't say what day exactly), in a courthouse near here (we can't say where exactly), a judge (we can't say which one) will hear testimony from a person or persons (we can't say whom) involved in a high-profile crime (we can't say what) that occurred recently (we can't say when exactly).
We can't say because one or more parties to the case are trying to impose a "publication ban and sealing order," which The London Free Press, Sun Media and QMI Agency are opposing, along with other news organizations.
Not only is there an attempt to put a publication ban on the proceedings next week, there is also an attempt to put a ban on writing about the attempt to put a ban on the proceedings next week.
So, for the moment at least, we can't tell you anything, about anyone, anywhere, anytime.
Such is the transparency of the modern justice system, at least in this case.
Publication bans are often requested to protect the carriage of justice and to ensure everyone receives a fair trial. They are well-intentioned and may well be necessary, but the world is changing faster than the justice system, for better or worse.
It is almost inevitable in this case, at this particular time in history, that all the relevant information will "leak" out of the courtroom within moments of it being heard and immediately arrive unedited on the Internet, for all to see, via Twitter, Facebook or an endless number of blogs and other modes of electronic informational transport, yet we won't be able to publish it.
This is what has happened in the past.
So the only place you won't be able to learn about this is from large and respectable news organizations -- newspapers, TV, radio -- the very institutions that have been following the rules and reporting on the administration of justice in this country for more than a century, and for the most part doing it responsibly.
It's true, the courts tend to be conservative, and just because some people can get around an order doesn't necessarily mean it shouldn't be made. The courts would no doubt argue that we'll make the order now and deal with those who ignore it later.
At any rate, when our lawyers oppose the ban, they will not be arguing that anyway. They'll be arguing the parties seeking the ban must demonstrate the apparent harm done by publishing an account of the proceedings will outweigh the public's interest in knowing what is going on in our courtrooms.
But sooner or later, isn't it time we have a debate about laws that are unenforceable in a modern world?
If we do not, it makes the institutions issuing them look not just conservative, but old, archaic, out-of-touch, inflexible and increasingly irrelevant.
Paul Berton is Editor-in-Chief of The London Free Press. He can be reached at 519-667-4514, e-mail paul.berton@sunmedia.ca or read Paul's blog..
