Well, this seems like uncharted territory... We know a certain American blog hasn't broken the publication ban on Jean Brault's Gomery testimony because American media are exempt from it, but are Canadian bloggers linking to his blog really in breach of the ban?
What about linking to a blog that links to the blog in question? I think that's safe. (If not, well, how about linking to Google and whispering the words "Brault" and "Testimony"?)
Anyway, all of you folks screaming about freedom of speech yadda-yadda (and that includes you, oh Mighty Instapundit), take a chill pill: You've got to understand that the Gomery publication ban doesn't mean that Canucks will never be allowed to know what Chuck Guite, Paul Coffin, and Jean Brault say/said in front of the Sponsorship Inquiry. The information can be published once the juries in their criminal trials are sequestered. That's just a couple of months away.
Perhaps it could be be argued that the public's right to know what happens at an important public inquiry trumps that of an individual to a fair trial.... But the public's right to know right now certainly doesn't.
Whatever happened to Patience is a Virtue? Oh, right: The InterWeb happened.
And here's a question for y'all: Would Brault have given the testimony he did if he knew that bloggers would make it all public knowledge before his criminal trial?
But, really, what kind of role models do bloggers have, when the MSM has been publishing columns about how damning Brault's testimony is supposed to be since Friday, networks and newspapers have been directing people to the American blogger and interviewing the blogger in question, and Peter Mackay is going around saying that "the sole purpose of having the ban in place has just evaporated. There is no point"?
Anyway, this whole mess has made me trust Judge Gomery a little more. Now that's he's being accused of bias and/or cover-up by both the left and the right, I know he's doing a good job...