Do citizens have the right to discuss certain trials before the court’s decision (verdict) is issued, as well as after?
I believe they have.
In my opinion, the right to discuss the actions of judges is the fundamental right of citizens of a democratic country. It organically follows from the sacred right of freedom of speech in general. In a free society, there should be no taboo topics. This right extends not only to the courts, but also to all public authorities. Neither the court, nor the Government, nor the Parliament, have the right to deprive citizens of the freedom to criticize their actions. Both in the decision-making process and after it.
The principle of “court decisions are not discussed” or “the decisions of the Government are not discussed”, or even “the President’s decisions are not discussed” is acceptable for employees of these public authorities or subordinates of the President, and even only in the duration of work in submission. If a person does not agree with the actions of the state agency or the head, he can quit and then publicly criticize him.
The prohibition on the discussion of the actions of courts and other state agencies means the recognition of the infallibility of these agencies, that is, almost their divine origin. This was possible somewhere in 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 the attempt of the Union of Judges to ban the influence of the public on the courts is tantamount to recognizing the lack of professionalism and moral instability of judges. Namely, the Union of Judges fears that judges cannot withstand public pressure and make a decision in favor of the crowd, and not in accordance with the law. However, in this case, in my opinion, the Union of Judges needs to direct their efforts on the appropriate work with the judges, rather than on protecting them from the public.
P.S. The only exception of this rule is the inadmissibility of disclosure of confidential information by participants in the process, which has become known to them because of their professional activities. But this issue is already settled by law and, I think, does not cause disagreement in the society.