6 ms·

I'm getting a bit sick of journalists acting like they should be above the law. This comes across as though it's an audacious abuse of authority for any law enf

I'm getting a bit sick of journalists acting like they should be above the law. This comes across as though it's an audacious abuse of authority for any law enforcement official to even think about stepping foot into a media companies office. No, you are subject to criminal investigation just like anyone else is. I'm always amazed how qickly the media closes ranks when one of their own is perceived to be under attack. The outcry is always from other journalists.

anarchy8 7y ago
I'm pretty amazed that people on this forum are so quick to jump on the side of an authoritarian right-wing government over press freedom.
- SuddsMcDuff 7y ago
  What a misguided comment. There are no "sides" here. Unless you think that any criticism of journalistic practices puts me on "the other team". Grow up!
  - notgonnakeep 7y ago
    So, if journalists catch wind of the government being involved in illegal activity, they should just sit down and shut up because it's not their place to publish it. Don't see bootlickers too often on HN, but here you are.
    - SuddsMcDuff 7y ago
      Journalists should know that if they walk the fine line between legal and illegal then they run the risk of being investigated. If they're confident they're on the right side of the law then they have little to worry about. What I take exception to is their attitude, as if it's some great affront to decency and democracy that they should come under any kind of scrutiny. I don't see many people hurling childish insults on HN, but here you are.
  - notgonnakeep 7y ago
    It seems I can't reply to your other comment, so I'll address it here: >Journalists should know that if they walk the fine line between legal and illegal then they run the risk of being investigated. Sure, no disagreements there. >If they're confident they're on the right side of the law then they have little to worry about. This is not the issue, the issue here is clearly intimidation by government entities that wish to silence the media. Right side of the law doesn't matter to the law if you have the right dirt. The right dirt will get your killed. >What I take exception to is their attitude, as if it's some great affront to decency and democracy that they should come under any kind of scrutiny. It certainly is a great affront to decency and democracy when the work the journalists are involved in is exposing behavior unfitting for the government. We're not talking about twitter accounts being suspended for saying unsavory things, we're talking about large organizations being raided by the entities they are investigating. Clearly these are distinct situations. >I don't see many people hurling childish insults on HN, but here you are. I call it like I see it. People like you are the reason that so much of our world is non-transparent. You might be ok with that, I am not.
- sonnyblarney 7y ago
  Australia, one of the most open, free and fair places in the world, into which millions are trying to migrate because of this ... is now a 'right wing authoritarian state'? I think we need to look at the specific information in question. FYI here's a summary of Australia shield laws [1] (sorry, it's not very good) [1] https://www.theguardian.com/world/2013/aug/07/australia-journalist-protection-shield-laws https://www.theguardian.com/world/2013/aug/07/australia-jour...
  - anonymousDan 7y ago
    Uhm, doctors and medical professionals wanting to expose the rape and abuse of child refugees on Nauru might disagree with you.
    - sonnyblarney 7y ago
      Disagree with which part? Exposing illegal activity would seem to be confidently within the bounds of 'whistle blowing'.
      - cyphar 7y ago
        There have been numerous attempts to have independent investigations of the abuses in Nauru and Manus Island and they've been blocked many times by the government. There is also evidence of child rape by the guards of these modern-day internment camps, with no resolution that I've hear of by the government. The government is not interested in investigating these hideous abuses and conditions at all. In fact they were trying to find the whistleblowers (probably to prosecute them) rather than investigating the allegations of rape and torture[1]. [1]: https://www.smh.com.au/politics/federal/federal-government-asks-australian-federal-police-to-find-nauru-whistleblowers-20150930-gjyj0i.html https://www.smh.com.au/politics/federal/federal-government-a...
  - cyphar 7y ago
    > Australia, one of the most open, free and fair places in the world I'm not sure what Australia you live in. We are currently torturing asylum seekers, with unlimited detention periods (the only nation on earth who allows this). A recent whistleblower that showed corruption within the ATO (to Americans: the IRS) is facing charges that would land him with 160 years in prison. We've neglected and abused the native population to the point that Aboriginal teenager suicide rates are among the highest in the world. Our education system is failing to the point where our education system has the same standards as third world nations -- we rank lower in science and maths than Kazakhstan. In 2015, laws were passed to punish whistleblowers, journalists, AND THE PUBLIC if ASIO (Americans: the NSA) information becomes public. We are the only nation on earth to pass draconian anti-privacy laws that other nations' leaders can only dream of. We don't have any laws guaranteeing freedom of speech, privacy, or any other freedoms we take for granted -- and we are the only western democracy where this is the case. Don't get me wrong, I hope Australia does get better -- after all, I deeply want it to because I've grown up here. But if you think that the Australia of today is in any way "one of the most open, free and fair places in the world" you're simply mistaken. Yes it's better than living in Saudi Arabia but that shouldn't be an accomplishment.
happytoexplain 7y ago
I don't see this, or many other examples, as journalists acting like they are above the law, or as a normal criminal investigation.
sonnyblarney 7y ago
Everyone seems to get lost in the nuance. It really does matter what is being published. You can't go ahead and publish for example the locations of US ballistic missile sites and say 'hey, freedom of expression'. The real problem lies where information is considered classified, but at the same time, there's a legit case to be made for whistle blowing. I don't think Manning's leaks actually constitute whistle blowing, and while much of Snowden's data certainly did, a lot of the other data definitely did not, ergo there's possibility for real crime there. Agree or disagree with that - it's basically going to be up to the journalist to have to decided if it's truly whistle blowing or not, which can only be found in courts at a later date. So it's a tough one. It's also tough to establish in 2019 who constitutes 'journalist'. I wish there were a system we could put in place for this.
- anonymousDan 7y ago
  What a load of strawman arguments, whataboutery and general rubbish. Of course it's possible to have untrammelled freedom of speech. It may have downsides in many cases, but perhaps that is a price worth paying. Also, in what way does exposing the murder of innocent civilians by Manning not count as whistleblowing? Finally, why should free speech protections be restricted to journalists?
  - sonnyblarney 7y ago
    1)"Of course it's possible to have untrammelled freedom of speech. It may have downsides in many cases, but perhaps that is a price worth paying." No, totally false. There's a considerable amount of information that you cannot publish. Both information managed by the state, and information that is private to individuals and organizations. There's a considerable amount of information that many individuals would like to publish that definitely does not constitute 'whistle blowing'. It's not a 'straw man argument' because the issue is relevant every day to journalists trying to make this decision. There's considerable consternation among even major/professional media outlets about what parts of leaks they can publish, what they can't, moreover, there are entities (i.e. bloggers) who'd just publish whatever, whenever, without considering the consequences if they didn't have to. So sorry, you can't publish pictures of your naked girlfriend, or private medical records of employees, or many state secrets. 2) Manning published gigabytes of data for which he had no knowledge of the contents - this is not 'whistle blowing', moreover, his publication of the video journalists dying in a war zone does not fit this description either. Nobody has the right to enter into a firefight in the most dangerous location in the world, and to not inform the combatants (as per protocol) and expect that they will be treated with the normal rules of application of violence in a civilian area. Of course, were the journalists were to have informed the US forces of their intentions, they would have been told to 'absolutely not enter because your safety will be ensured'. The video shows the folly of individuals who think they can just walk into a war zone with cameras. There was no crime. 3) "Finally, why should free speech protections be restricted to journalists?" Well, first consider that 'shield laws' as they exist generally only apply to journalists, so take that up with the government, but it hints at my point which is that the 'rules are vague'. Your understanding of 'freedom of speech' as conveyed by your comment seems to be flawed: nobody ever had the right to publish 'whatever' under the guise of 'freedom of speech'. Summary: - There is information that cannot be published, there is no debate here. - The rules at to what can be published is unclear. - The 'shield laws' are vague, and especially the terms of what constitutes 'journalist' is vague, further complicating things. So if we want the journalists to be able to 'do their jobs' we may need better, clearer regulation.
cyphar 7y ago
Australia does not have any constitutional protections of press freedom (or freedom of speech for that matter). So draconian laws limiting press freedom can be passed without any recourse for the public. Being able to forcefully disclose a journalists sources would not be permitted anywhere else in the world. We need reforms, not cow-towing to these disgusting authoritarian tactics. Not to mention that this is clearly political. This comes on the eve of an election, and is related to articles published ~2 years ago. Not to mention the most recent article in question described alleged war crimes by the Australian military. But there's no legal investigation into that law breaking, all that matters is that the whistleblower is arrested and made an example of. I hope we one day see an anti-corruption commission and pass laws protecting whistleblowers and a free press. But it's going to be a long road.
- djsumdog 7y ago
  Right, Australia has no bill of rights. The State of Victoria (Melbourne) has a charter of human rights, but I don't think it's binding. Australia courts have held up freedoms of protest and press in the past, but technically the Crown does control all communication. New Zealand has an official office of censor.
  - cyphar 7y ago
    The High Court (of Australia) has made a fair few great decisions that are related to implied rights within the constitution, but it's pretty clear that they've already stretched the wording very considerably. They can't just enshrine rights which we take for granted in our everyday lives as being constitutional, because that would invalidate their authority as being the final source of truth for constitutional questions. There is a research paper published in 1998 by the Australian Parliament which outlines the many arguments why we need stronger constitutional rights[1]. Unfortunately, we have had a referendum on this topic before and it was categorically refused[2] (though the constitutional amendment being proposed was incredibly weak and that might've been the reason it was refused). [1]: https://www.aph.gov.au/About_Parliament/Parliamentary_Departments/Parliamentary_Library/pubs/rp/rp9899/99rp20 https://www.aph.gov.au/About_Parliament/Parliamentary_Depart... [2]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1988_Australian_referendum#Rights_and_Freedoms https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1988_Australian_referendum#Rig...
ebog 7y ago
In the US at least, press freedom is greater than simply freedom of speech (according to case law), and this is by design. Information of significant public interest shouldn't be censored.
peterkelly 7y ago
And I'm getting a bit sick of my country committing war crimes and trying to cover them up (which was the subject of the story the raids related to). I think it's more important for those responsible for the cold-blooded murder of innocent civilians to be publicly held to account than for the government's "right" to keep those killings secret, even if the law favors the latter.

anarchy8 7y ago

I'm pretty amazed that people on this forum are so quick to jump on the side of an authoritarian right-wing government over press freedom.

SuddsMcDuff 7y ago
What a misguided comment. There are no "sides" here. Unless you think that any criticism of journalistic practices puts me on "the other team". Grow up!
- notgonnakeep 7y ago
  So, if journalists catch wind of the government being involved in illegal activity, they should just sit down and shut up because it's not their place to publish it. Don't see bootlickers too often on HN, but here you are.
  - SuddsMcDuff 7y ago
    Journalists should know that if they walk the fine line between legal and illegal then they run the risk of being investigated. If they're confident they're on the right side of the law then they have little to worry about. What I take exception to is their attitude, as if it's some great affront to decency and democracy that they should come under any kind of scrutiny. I don't see many people hurling childish insults on HN, but here you are.
- notgonnakeep 7y ago
  It seems I can't reply to your other comment, so I'll address it here: >Journalists should know that if they walk the fine line between legal and illegal then they run the risk of being investigated. Sure, no disagreements there. >If they're confident they're on the right side of the law then they have little to worry about. This is not the issue, the issue here is clearly intimidation by government entities that wish to silence the media. Right side of the law doesn't matter to the law if you have the right dirt. The right dirt will get your killed. >What I take exception to is their attitude, as if it's some great affront to decency and democracy that they should come under any kind of scrutiny. It certainly is a great affront to decency and democracy when the work the journalists are involved in is exposing behavior unfitting for the government. We're not talking about twitter accounts being suspended for saying unsavory things, we're talking about large organizations being raided by the entities they are investigating. Clearly these are distinct situations. >I don't see many people hurling childish insults on HN, but here you are. I call it like I see it. People like you are the reason that so much of our world is non-transparent. You might be ok with that, I am not.
sonnyblarney 7y ago
Australia, one of the most open, free and fair places in the world, into which millions are trying to migrate because of this ... is now a 'right wing authoritarian state'? I think we need to look at the specific information in question. FYI here's a summary of Australia shield laws [1] (sorry, it's not very good) [1] https://www.theguardian.com/world/2013/aug/07/australia-journalist-protection-shield-laws https://www.theguardian.com/world/2013/aug/07/australia-jour...
- anonymousDan 7y ago
  Uhm, doctors and medical professionals wanting to expose the rape and abuse of child refugees on Nauru might disagree with you.
  - sonnyblarney 7y ago
    Disagree with which part? Exposing illegal activity would seem to be confidently within the bounds of 'whistle blowing'.
    - cyphar 7y ago
      There have been numerous attempts to have independent investigations of the abuses in Nauru and Manus Island and they've been blocked many times by the government. There is also evidence of child rape by the guards of these modern-day internment camps, with no resolution that I've hear of by the government. The government is not interested in investigating these hideous abuses and conditions at all. In fact they were trying to find the whistleblowers (probably to prosecute them) rather than investigating the allegations of rape and torture[1]. [1]: https://www.smh.com.au/politics/federal/federal-government-asks-australian-federal-police-to-find-nauru-whistleblowers-20150930-gjyj0i.html https://www.smh.com.au/politics/federal/federal-government-a...
- cyphar 7y ago
  > Australia, one of the most open, free and fair places in the world I'm not sure what Australia you live in. We are currently torturing asylum seekers, with unlimited detention periods (the only nation on earth who allows this). A recent whistleblower that showed corruption within the ATO (to Americans: the IRS) is facing charges that would land him with 160 years in prison. We've neglected and abused the native population to the point that Aboriginal teenager suicide rates are among the highest in the world. Our education system is failing to the point where our education system has the same standards as third world nations -- we rank lower in science and maths than Kazakhstan. In 2015, laws were passed to punish whistleblowers, journalists, AND THE PUBLIC if ASIO (Americans: the NSA) information becomes public. We are the only nation on earth to pass draconian anti-privacy laws that other nations' leaders can only dream of. We don't have any laws guaranteeing freedom of speech, privacy, or any other freedoms we take for granted -- and we are the only western democracy where this is the case. Don't get me wrong, I hope Australia does get better -- after all, I deeply want it to because I've grown up here. But if you think that the Australia of today is in any way "one of the most open, free and fair places in the world" you're simply mistaken. Yes it's better than living in Saudi Arabia but that shouldn't be an accomplishment.

happytoexplain 7y ago

I don't see this, or many other examples, as journalists acting like they are above the law, or as a normal criminal investigation.

sonnyblarney 7y ago

Everyone seems to get lost in the nuance. It really does matter what is being published. You can't go ahead and publish for example the locations of US ballistic missile sites and say 'hey, freedom of expression'. The real problem lies where information is considered classified, but at the same time, there's a legit case to be made for whistle blowing. I don't think Manning's leaks actually constitute whistle blowing, and while much of Snowden's data certainly did, a lot of the other data definitely did not, ergo there's possibility for real crime there. Agree or disagree with that - it's basically going to be up to the journalist to have to decided if it's truly whistle blowing or not, which can only be found in courts at a later date. So it's a tough one. It's also tough to establish in 2019 who constitutes 'journalist'. I wish there were a system we could put in place for this.

anonymousDan 7y ago
What a load of strawman arguments, whataboutery and general rubbish. Of course it's possible to have untrammelled freedom of speech. It may have downsides in many cases, but perhaps that is a price worth paying. Also, in what way does exposing the murder of innocent civilians by Manning not count as whistleblowing? Finally, why should free speech protections be restricted to journalists?
- sonnyblarney 7y ago
  1)"Of course it's possible to have untrammelled freedom of speech. It may have downsides in many cases, but perhaps that is a price worth paying." No, totally false. There's a considerable amount of information that you cannot publish. Both information managed by the state, and information that is private to individuals and organizations. There's a considerable amount of information that many individuals would like to publish that definitely does not constitute 'whistle blowing'. It's not a 'straw man argument' because the issue is relevant every day to journalists trying to make this decision. There's considerable consternation among even major/professional media outlets about what parts of leaks they can publish, what they can't, moreover, there are entities (i.e. bloggers) who'd just publish whatever, whenever, without considering the consequences if they didn't have to. So sorry, you can't publish pictures of your naked girlfriend, or private medical records of employees, or many state secrets. 2) Manning published gigabytes of data for which he had no knowledge of the contents - this is not 'whistle blowing', moreover, his publication of the video journalists dying in a war zone does not fit this description either. Nobody has the right to enter into a firefight in the most dangerous location in the world, and to not inform the combatants (as per protocol) and expect that they will be treated with the normal rules of application of violence in a civilian area. Of course, were the journalists were to have informed the US forces of their intentions, they would have been told to 'absolutely not enter because your safety will be ensured'. The video shows the folly of individuals who think they can just walk into a war zone with cameras. There was no crime. 3) "Finally, why should free speech protections be restricted to journalists?" Well, first consider that 'shield laws' as they exist generally only apply to journalists, so take that up with the government, but it hints at my point which is that the 'rules are vague'. Your understanding of 'freedom of speech' as conveyed by your comment seems to be flawed: nobody ever had the right to publish 'whatever' under the guise of 'freedom of speech'. Summary: - There is information that cannot be published, there is no debate here. - The rules at to what can be published is unclear. - The 'shield laws' are vague, and especially the terms of what constitutes 'journalist' is vague, further complicating things. So if we want the journalists to be able to 'do their jobs' we may need better, clearer regulation.

cyphar 7y ago

Australia does not have any constitutional protections of press freedom (or freedom of speech for that matter). So draconian laws limiting press freedom can be passed without any recourse for the public. Being able to forcefully disclose a journalists sources would not be permitted anywhere else in the world. We need reforms, not cow-towing to these disgusting authoritarian tactics. Not to mention that this is clearly political. This comes on the eve of an election, and is related to articles published ~2 years ago. Not to mention the most recent article in question described alleged war crimes by the Australian military. But there's no legal investigation into that law breaking, all that matters is that the whistleblower is arrested and made an example of. I hope we one day see an anti-corruption commission and pass laws protecting whistleblowers and a free press. But it's going to be a long road.

djsumdog 7y ago
Right, Australia has no bill of rights. The State of Victoria (Melbourne) has a charter of human rights, but I don't think it's binding. Australia courts have held up freedoms of protest and press in the past, but technically the Crown does control all communication. New Zealand has an official office of censor.
- cyphar 7y ago
  The High Court (of Australia) has made a fair few great decisions that are related to implied rights within the constitution, but it's pretty clear that they've already stretched the wording very considerably. They can't just enshrine rights which we take for granted in our everyday lives as being constitutional, because that would invalidate their authority as being the final source of truth for constitutional questions. There is a research paper published in 1998 by the Australian Parliament which outlines the many arguments why we need stronger constitutional rights[1]. Unfortunately, we have had a referendum on this topic before and it was categorically refused[2] (though the constitutional amendment being proposed was incredibly weak and that might've been the reason it was refused). [1]: https://www.aph.gov.au/About_Parliament/Parliamentary_Departments/Parliamentary_Library/pubs/rp/rp9899/99rp20 https://www.aph.gov.au/About_Parliament/Parliamentary_Depart... [2]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1988_Australian_referendum#Rights_and_Freedoms https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1988_Australian_referendum#Rig...

ebog 7y ago

In the US at least, press freedom is greater than simply freedom of speech (according to case law), and this is by design. Information of significant public interest shouldn't be censored.

peterkelly 7y ago

And I'm getting a bit sick of my country committing war crimes and trying to cover them up (which was the subject of the story the raids related to). I think it's more important for those responsible for the cold-blooded murder of innocent civilians to be publicly held to account than for the government's "right" to keep those killings secret, even if the law favors the latter.