Suppression orders don't work

in the internet age. I don't know if suppression orders have ever been really effective when someone is determined that news be spread. There always seems to be someone "in the know" who spreads the news that was supposed to be suppressed.
The news yesterday that the DPP wants to prosecute no less than thirty-six journalists for breaching a suppression order in respect of the case of Cardinal Pell came as no surprise to me. It won't surprise those involved either.
I knew about the outcome of the case before it could be reported here. Friends overseas - where it could be reported - advised me as soon as they knew. They knew I had an interest in the matter - not with respect to the defendant himself -  but with respect to the way in which the case was (and is) being handle.
There had been years of anti-Pell rhetoric in the media.  A journalist had written a book which "exposed" him. It had been widely available in the state in which he was tried - and then banned from sale. All that people had to do of course was go over the border into a neighbouring state and buy a copy. It meant even more people bought it and read it. The copy I saw was obtained in this way. 
I looked at the book. I did not read it all. I didn't read it simply because it was appallingly badly researched and written. It was one of those things done in haste when a journalist knows they are on to a good thing - sales wise. That it did immense harm to the defendant's case was precisely what it was intended to do. The media had made up their collective minds that the cardinal was guilty.  That was it. No other outcome was possible. 
The suppression order simply didn't work for those reasons. The media was determined. Things might not be published here but they knew things could be published overseas. 
One investigative journalist went so far as to travel overseas simply so he could publish information on his website - and that could be read by anyone who cared to look on the internet and type in a few simple search terms. By doing that he breached no law here but it allowed any interested person to inform themselves about the basic facts. 
Am I bothered by all of this? Yes, I am. I am aware of a book which has been written about other matters. These are matters which involve past and present politicians on the Labor side of government.  No publishing company will touch it - not because the information contained in it is necessarily wrong but because of the likely consequences associated with publication. The research that has gone into that book is, I believe, much more thorough and it has been written by a member of the legal profession. Rather than going on the uncorroborated evidence of one person there is a paper trail of evidentiary standard that can be followed. 
Nothing is being done about this by those who could bring the issue to court. The mainstream media won't touch the story. I have been warned not to say anything that might lead to identifying those involved or the issues which are of concern. As I have no first hand knowledge I also know it is wise to leave the matter to those who have.
What bothers me though is how differently the two matters have been treated  by those who should be enforcing the law and those whose  role it is to report these things. The courts can do little about either. 
If however the courts do manage to do more than give some of the journalists involved a slap on one wrist and a bag of lollies to hang on the other then I will be well pleased.