Australia's peak body representing lawyers has called for a review of court suppression orders, and wants nationally consistent laws.
The Law Council of Australia fears the orders aren't keeping up with the digital age and says inconsistency in how they are applied across the nation is sparking confusion.
Its appeal for a review comes after a suppression order was lifted on the trial of Australia's highest-ranking Catholic, Cardinal George Pell, revealing a jury's finding that he raped one choirboy and molested another.
The jurors returned a unanimous verdict in December as part of a retrial following a hung jury in September.
A suppression order prevented media reporting details of the trial until the gag was lifted on Tuesday, however the information was able to be found on social media.
Law Council president Arthur Moses says legislation on suppression orders must acknowledge the "fundamental truth" that it is virtually impossible to quarantine juries from the internet.
He wants the government's Australian Law Reform Commission to investigate whether existing laws bear this in mind.
"Orders that are made by courts that don't take that (spread of social media) into account, in effect, place persons at risk of breaching orders," he told ABC's Radio National on Wednesday.
He noted courts grant suppression orders to prevent prejudice in a trial.
But that could also be achieved through a judge directing a jury to "put out of their mind" an individual's previous offences when deciding if they are guilty of a different charge, he said.
The Law Council wants the ALRC to establish a standard set of suppression order laws that can be used across the nation.
At the moment, more than 200 pieces of legislation deal with the orders.
"There's no point having different laws in different states concerning this issue, it creates confusion for the public and journalists," Mr Moses said.
A pair of legal academics have called for the Melbourne court to publish its reasons for the suppression order on the Pell case, saying there was a widespread misunderstanding of why it was made.
"A misconception is that the suppression orders were sought to protect Pell's reputation, or that of the Catholic Church," University of Western Australia senior lecturer Michael Douglas and the University of Melbourne law school's Jason Bosland write in The Conversation.
"The court's written reasons for suppression in the Pell trials - if they exist - should be easily available to the public to aid their understanding of this case."
