In a highly publicized kidnapping case in Ontario, the judge barred all media and spectators from the courtroom. Her decision was based on the judgment that the public interest would not be served by allowing spectators. A local citizen argued, "They pleaded with the public to help find the victim; they pleaded with the public to provide tips; they aroused the public interest, then they claimed that allowing us to attend would not serve the public interest. These actions are inconsistent. " The reasoning in the local citizen's argument is flawed because this argument ['attempts to support its conclusion by making sensationalistic appeals', 'generalizes from an atypical case', "presumes that the public's right to know is obviously more important than the defendant's right to a fair trial", 'trades on an ambiguity with respect to the term "public interest"']