3 ms·
American documents were leaked to journalists and that was a legally gray problem in the UK? Don't be silly. Imagine if some Saudi documents were leaked to jou
by notveryrational 8y ago
American documents were leaked to journalists and that was a legally gray problem in the UK? Don't be silly.
Imagine if some Saudi documents were leaked to journalists and the American government walked into the Times and forced them to destroy the documents at gunpoint.
This was clear and simple government censorship.
Not particularly unusual or remarkable for the UK.
- detaro 8y agoAmerican documents containing information about things the UK government considered state secrets. If there wasn't a legal risk, why would the Guardian have complied? That's kind of unrelated to the question if you consider that legal threat justified or not, it's clearly there.
- notveryrational 8y ago> If there wasn't a legal risk, why would the Guardian have complied? They were at gunpoint. If there was merely a legal risk, it would have been sorted out by the courts and with lawyers. Example: Pentagon Papers, NYT. This was a no-disagreement, forced compliance situation. It's not like they debated with the armed guards and they came to mutual philosophical position. And note that The Guardian _did_ disagree. They had no other option. So the entire argument "They complied (when forced at gunpoint and under threat) -> therefore it must have been a legally gray thing for them to report on global surveillance documents" begs the question. And to that point, the argument would be thrown out of any courtroom on those grounds. When strongarm governments exercise their authoritarian muscles, we don't need to apologize and make excuses for it.