There's a risk of not seeing the forest for the trees here. The A-League do have a major, major issue with anti-social behaviour from their fans. THAT is the forest.
Isn't the emotional outrage clouding the issue here? Isn't this the exact same standard of reporting which we, as a community, have accepted as normal for decades? People accused are reported in the press (if considered newsworthy) before they've had any chance at natural justice through the courts. This is standard practice in the press. To have reported the people's names here is essentially no different. Isn't it?
The reporting of facts (i.e the bannings) is one thing. The presumption of levels of guilt before access to natural justice through appeal is another. I don't know what avenues the people had available to them to challenge the bannings. But I would expect and hope the FFA would not ban without significant damning evidence.
Brett Stewart being reported as accused was one matter. The widespread implicit assumption of guilt throughout the press, and from Gallop, was where the actions crossed a deeply prejudicial line. It is that form of overreach which should gain our outrage.
