8 ms·

UK wants to reform Official Secrets law by pretending journalism doesn't exist

186 points by severine 5y ago

raxxorrax 5y ago
Not from the UK, but it is a mistake to insist on press freedom. There should not be a difference between a journalist and any other civilian. Doing this will only lead to government trying to attack the status of journalist, which will drag people through the mud. Everyone is allowed to report on everything, naturally. Especially on government misconduct. That said, for any practical reason, just give the info that hasn't been authorized for release to someone outside of government jurisdiction and keep your head down. Problem solved, info is out.
- testvox 5y ago
  "Freedom of the press" in US law just means the freedom to create and distribute media (as opposed to freedom of speech which is specifically about the spoken word). "The press" references the printing press not the news media or journalists who are in modern times called "the press" also in reference to the printing press. Journalists have the same first amendment rights as everyone else (actually they could be said to have less because for certain purposes such as defamation they are actually held to a higher standard).
  - raxxorrax 5y ago
    Sensible definition and I think it goes even further as they have some privileges as they cannot be forced to reveal sources. I think these rights should be extended to anyone that fits the definition in the widest sense that it includes all type of whistleblowing.
    - testvox 5y ago
      They actually can be forced to reveal sources, the choice not to force them to reveal sources was executive branch policy not law and this policy was rescinded by the Obama administration. I think they realized this was pretty bad optics though so Obama and Trump mostly just relied on using their broad intelligence powers to track down reporter's sources. https://www.theguardian.com/law/2013/aug/27/obama-administration-james-risen-no-privilege https://www.theguardian.com/law/2013/aug/27/obama-administra...
      - raxxorrax 5y ago
        Damn, of course...
    - chrisseaton 5y ago
      > they cannot be forced to reveal sources Is that the case? What legislation gives them that right?
      - briandear 5y ago
        There’s no such legislation.
  - judge2020 5y ago
    > actually they could be said to have less because for certain purposes such as defamation they are actually held to a higher standard Only because what they publish is, by default, going to see more eyeballs and thus more likely for the defamed party to wan to seek remediation.
  - unishark 5y ago
    Kind of works out to special freedoms when the govt limits the number of people who can observe events and hands access credentials out based on whether they are more legitimate-appearing journalists.
    - chrisseaton 5y ago
      Why does the government have an approved press pool? When you think about it it’s completely barmy. Why don’t they do everything via press releases and let everyone access equally?
      - Retric 5y ago
        It’s a legacy from before radio, which sticks around because press briefings often allow for questions. Q&A is useful because it adds clarity, but the format means they can pick which reporters to favor.
      - JumpCrisscross 5y ago
        > Why don’t they do everything via press releases and let everyone access equally? Because that's less transparent. From an idealistic perspective, sure, this is fine. From a practical perspective, it's bonkers.
        chrisseaton 5y ago
        Why is it more transparent to let a lot of unelected people who represent nobody ask questions? We already have elected people paid to do this job - HM’s opposition.
        JumpCrisscross 5y ago
        This is a good example of letting perfect be the enemy of the good. Because everyone can't--physically--have access, nobody gets it and the elected leadership gets to hide behind press releases.
  - jcranmer 5y ago
    > actually they could be said to have less because for certain purposes such as defamation they are actually held to a higher standard The higher standard you're referring to I think is the "actual malice" standard, but that applies when the target of the defamation is a public figure, regardless of whether the alleged defamer is a journalist.
    - deleted 5y ago
      [deleted]
- Jenk 5y ago
  I think that's the point here though. Currently there is no extra protections offered to journalists than any other person. Everyone is "free". This new law infringes on that freedom. It is reported as a law against journalists but it is a law against anyone who wishes to expose government wrongdoing. They are politicising it as a fight for/against journalism, mostly because there is a large segement of UK society that have a strong disliking of journalists in general - many have living memory of several journalism scandals from invasion of privacy (e.g., "phone hacking scandal"), to dressing up as a "terrorist" to invade the palace (read: dress up in clothing worn by cultures in the middle east and, literally, blackface and then walk into the palace as a tourist and deliberately "get lost") to some general shitbaggery (e.g., The Sun blaming Liverpool FC supporters for the Hillsborough distaster) It is so so important to remember/realise that a "journalist" is _anyone_ reporting or publishing something. Even just a tweet that exposes some wrongdoing by the government would get you nabbed by this law.
  - hogFeast 5y ago
    It isn't a law against journalists or against everyone. Nothing new is being introduced, all that is happening is that rules against disclosure of confidential documents are being hardened...but these rules already exist today. Also, I am also not sure how the distinction aren't obvious: this is happening because a journalist, seemingly acting at the behest of a nation state, leaked confidential documents relating to national security. The UK already has laws that make this a criminal offence (and btw, the reason why the 1989 Act was passed was because someone did something very similar in the 80s, and tried to claim a public interest defence...this is not new). It is not aimed at journalists criticising the govt. It is not aimed at leaking generally. The purpose of this act is legitimate: to dissuade people from leaking stuff that is confidential for a reason (and btw, when journalists do get access to this stuff, they usually ask the govt what they should do anyway...obviously, this is changing but the situation that people are concerned about already exists, and hasn't led to lower levels of scrutiny...the irony of people who are relentlessly critical of the govt complaining about being silenced). This is just like the policing bill. The media are misreporting what the actual content is (not to a huge degree, but enough), the noisy minority are getting their views from other uninformed people on Twitter, and no-one actually has a clue what is going on (I have read one story on this that actually quotes an actor's tweets...who cares?). Democracy in action.
- jeroenhd 5y ago
  I disagree. In my opinion, certain illegal acts (like breaking into certain websites, illegally obtaining documents, etc.) should be legal if done for the purpose of proper journalism. I don't want people going around hacking random websites to prove a point to the sysadmins, but I also don't want journalists to be silenced from exposing incompetencies in critical systems. Sadly, modern journalism had veered more and more into the territory of activism, much more than it had fifty years ago. The Murdoch media machine is doing its best to accelerate this change of direction, as is the sensationalist new from the US. With the current course of politics worldwide, extra protections for citizens is not the outcome I expect from abolishing journalistic freedoms. Instead, journalists will be downgraded to the limited and sometimes even oppressive rules citizens have in regard to freedom of information and conduct. "Just keep your head down" is not a solution, because most people suck at OpSec. The government can and will find you if you release sensitive documents.
  - chrisseaton 5y ago
    > proper journalism Nobody's ever going to be able to define proper journalism.
    - ClumsyPilot 5y ago
      No, but there is a public interest defence
      - Lio 5y ago
        On 10th July 2011 Rupert Murdock was forced to close his News of the World newspaper due to overwhelming public disgust that they had hacked the answer phone and removed messages from a murdered little girl[1]. Murdock originally tried to use "public interest" to justify that. 1. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/News_International_phone_hacking_scandal https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/News_International_phone_hacki...
    - consumer451 5y ago
      > Nobody's ever going to be able to define proper journalism. I've had a thought bouncing around my pachinko machine of a brain about this topic. While at the single story/topic level you might be correct, I think there may be a pretty basic test for bias. Using sentiment analysis, (manually or ML) couldn't you figure out which topics or groups a news org never speaks ill of? The omitted criticisms could paint a pretty good picture of bias.
- deleted 5y ago
  [deleted]
- deleted 5y ago
  [deleted]
deleted 5y ago
[deleted]
pydry 5y ago
>Endorsed by the home secretary, Priti Patel, the consultation argues that press disclosures can be worse than spying, because the work of a foreign spy “will often only be to the benefit of a single state or actor”. tl;dr Priti Patel thinks embarrassing government leaks are worse for her than actual espionage and so wants to criminalize them.
- petepete 5y ago
  Disgraced Home Secretary, Priti Patel* https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-41853561.amp https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-41853561.amp
  - chrisseaton 5y ago
    No she's the current Home Secretary. You could argue that she's the 'disgraced' Secretary of State for International Development if you wanted to.
    - deleted 5y ago
      [deleted]
    - zimpenfish 5y ago
      > No she's the current Home Secretary. She can still be disgraced, though, no? Not least because she's been pretty disgraceful as Home Secretary.
      - chrisseaton 5y ago
        Disgraced X means they were X but have fallen from that position. You can’t be a disgraced X if you’re still an X.
        zimpenfish 5y ago
        Using the OUP definition via Google, "having fallen from favour or a position of power or honour; discredited." You are claiming that "fallen from a position of power" is the only valid meaning but "fallen from a position of favour" or "discredited" are also valid for Priti Patel. See also, e.g., Collins, Cambridge https://www.collinsdictionary.com/dictionary/english/disgraced https://www.collinsdictionary.com/dictionary/english/disgrac... https://dictionary.cambridge.org/dictionary/english/disgraced https://dictionary.cambridge.org/dictionary/english/disgrace... Perfect example from the second link: "Many thought the disgraced president needed to resign." [edit: added pertinent example]
mhh__ 5y ago
I look forward to David's blog being banned by the government for limiting their free speech...

186 points by severine 5y ago

Not from the UK, but it is a mistake to insist on press freedom. There should not be a difference between a journalist and any other civilian. Doing this will only lead to government trying to attack the status of journalist, which will drag people through the mud. Everyone is allowed to report on everything, naturally. Especially on government misconduct. That said, for any practical reason, just give the info that hasn't been authorized for release to someone outside of government jurisdiction and keep your head down. Problem solved, info is out.

testvox 5y ago
"Freedom of the press" in US law just means the freedom to create and distribute media (as opposed to freedom of speech which is specifically about the spoken word). "The press" references the printing press not the news media or journalists who are in modern times called "the press" also in reference to the printing press. Journalists have the same first amendment rights as everyone else (actually they could be said to have less because for certain purposes such as defamation they are actually held to a higher standard).
- raxxorrax 5y ago
  Sensible definition and I think it goes even further as they have some privileges as they cannot be forced to reveal sources. I think these rights should be extended to anyone that fits the definition in the widest sense that it includes all type of whistleblowing.
  - testvox 5y ago
    They actually can be forced to reveal sources, the choice not to force them to reveal sources was executive branch policy not law and this policy was rescinded by the Obama administration. I think they realized this was pretty bad optics though so Obama and Trump mostly just relied on using their broad intelligence powers to track down reporter's sources. https://www.theguardian.com/law/2013/aug/27/obama-administration-james-risen-no-privilege https://www.theguardian.com/law/2013/aug/27/obama-administra...
    - raxxorrax 5y ago
      Damn, of course...
  - chrisseaton 5y ago
    > they cannot be forced to reveal sources Is that the case? What legislation gives them that right?
    - briandear 5y ago
      There’s no such legislation.
- judge2020 5y ago
  > actually they could be said to have less because for certain purposes such as defamation they are actually held to a higher standard Only because what they publish is, by default, going to see more eyeballs and thus more likely for the defamed party to wan to seek remediation.
- unishark 5y ago
  Kind of works out to special freedoms when the govt limits the number of people who can observe events and hands access credentials out based on whether they are more legitimate-appearing journalists.
  - chrisseaton 5y ago
    Why does the government have an approved press pool? When you think about it it’s completely barmy. Why don’t they do everything via press releases and let everyone access equally?
    - Retric 5y ago
      It’s a legacy from before radio, which sticks around because press briefings often allow for questions. Q&A is useful because it adds clarity, but the format means they can pick which reporters to favor.
    - JumpCrisscross 5y ago
      > Why don’t they do everything via press releases and let everyone access equally? Because that's less transparent. From an idealistic perspective, sure, this is fine. From a practical perspective, it's bonkers.
      - chrisseaton 5y ago
        Why is it more transparent to let a lot of unelected people who represent nobody ask questions? We already have elected people paid to do this job - HM’s opposition.
        JumpCrisscross 5y ago
        This is a good example of letting perfect be the enemy of the good. Because everyone can't--physically--have access, nobody gets it and the elected leadership gets to hide behind press releases.
- jcranmer 5y ago
  > actually they could be said to have less because for certain purposes such as defamation they are actually held to a higher standard The higher standard you're referring to I think is the "actual malice" standard, but that applies when the target of the defamation is a public figure, regardless of whether the alleged defamer is a journalist.
  - deleted 5y ago
    [deleted]
Jenk 5y ago
I think that's the point here though. Currently there is no extra protections offered to journalists than any other person. Everyone is "free". This new law infringes on that freedom. It is reported as a law against journalists but it is a law against anyone who wishes to expose government wrongdoing. They are politicising it as a fight for/against journalism, mostly because there is a large segement of UK society that have a strong disliking of journalists in general - many have living memory of several journalism scandals from invasion of privacy (e.g., "phone hacking scandal"), to dressing up as a "terrorist" to invade the palace (read: dress up in clothing worn by cultures in the middle east and, literally, blackface and then walk into the palace as a tourist and deliberately "get lost") to some general shitbaggery (e.g., The Sun blaming Liverpool FC supporters for the Hillsborough distaster) It is so so important to remember/realise that a "journalist" is _anyone_ reporting or publishing something. Even just a tweet that exposes some wrongdoing by the government would get you nabbed by this law.
- hogFeast 5y ago
  It isn't a law against journalists or against everyone. Nothing new is being introduced, all that is happening is that rules against disclosure of confidential documents are being hardened...but these rules already exist today. Also, I am also not sure how the distinction aren't obvious: this is happening because a journalist, seemingly acting at the behest of a nation state, leaked confidential documents relating to national security. The UK already has laws that make this a criminal offence (and btw, the reason why the 1989 Act was passed was because someone did something very similar in the 80s, and tried to claim a public interest defence...this is not new). It is not aimed at journalists criticising the govt. It is not aimed at leaking generally. The purpose of this act is legitimate: to dissuade people from leaking stuff that is confidential for a reason (and btw, when journalists do get access to this stuff, they usually ask the govt what they should do anyway...obviously, this is changing but the situation that people are concerned about already exists, and hasn't led to lower levels of scrutiny...the irony of people who are relentlessly critical of the govt complaining about being silenced). This is just like the policing bill. The media are misreporting what the actual content is (not to a huge degree, but enough), the noisy minority are getting their views from other uninformed people on Twitter, and no-one actually has a clue what is going on (I have read one story on this that actually quotes an actor's tweets...who cares?). Democracy in action.
jeroenhd 5y ago
I disagree. In my opinion, certain illegal acts (like breaking into certain websites, illegally obtaining documents, etc.) should be legal if done for the purpose of proper journalism. I don't want people going around hacking random websites to prove a point to the sysadmins, but I also don't want journalists to be silenced from exposing incompetencies in critical systems. Sadly, modern journalism had veered more and more into the territory of activism, much more than it had fifty years ago. The Murdoch media machine is doing its best to accelerate this change of direction, as is the sensationalist new from the US. With the current course of politics worldwide, extra protections for citizens is not the outcome I expect from abolishing journalistic freedoms. Instead, journalists will be downgraded to the limited and sometimes even oppressive rules citizens have in regard to freedom of information and conduct. "Just keep your head down" is not a solution, because most people suck at OpSec. The government can and will find you if you release sensitive documents.
- chrisseaton 5y ago
  > proper journalism Nobody's ever going to be able to define proper journalism.
  - ClumsyPilot 5y ago
    No, but there is a public interest defence
    - Lio 5y ago
      On 10th July 2011 Rupert Murdock was forced to close his News of the World newspaper due to overwhelming public disgust that they had hacked the answer phone and removed messages from a murdered little girl[1]. Murdock originally tried to use "public interest" to justify that. 1. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/News_International_phone_hacking_scandal https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/News_International_phone_hacki...
  - consumer451 5y ago
    > Nobody's ever going to be able to define proper journalism. I've had a thought bouncing around my pachinko machine of a brain about this topic. While at the single story/topic level you might be correct, I think there may be a pretty basic test for bias. Using sentiment analysis, (manually or ML) couldn't you figure out which topics or groups a news org never speaks ill of? The omitted criticisms could paint a pretty good picture of bias.
deleted 5y ago
[deleted]
deleted 5y ago
[deleted]

deleted 5y ago

[deleted]

pydry 5y ago

>Endorsed by the home secretary, Priti Patel, the consultation argues that press disclosures can be worse than spying, because the work of a foreign spy “will often only be to the benefit of a single state or actor”. tl;dr Priti Patel thinks embarrassing government leaks are worse for her than actual espionage and so wants to criminalize them.

petepete 5y ago
Disgraced Home Secretary, Priti Patel* https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-41853561.amp https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-41853561.amp
- chrisseaton 5y ago
  No she's the current Home Secretary. You could argue that she's the 'disgraced' Secretary of State for International Development if you wanted to.
  - deleted 5y ago
    [deleted]
  - zimpenfish 5y ago
    > No she's the current Home Secretary. She can still be disgraced, though, no? Not least because she's been pretty disgraceful as Home Secretary.
    - chrisseaton 5y ago
      Disgraced X means they were X but have fallen from that position. You can’t be a disgraced X if you’re still an X.
      - zimpenfish 5y ago
        Using the OUP definition via Google, "having fallen from favour or a position of power or honour; discredited." You are claiming that "fallen from a position of power" is the only valid meaning but "fallen from a position of favour" or "discredited" are also valid for Priti Patel. See also, e.g., Collins, Cambridge https://www.collinsdictionary.com/dictionary/english/disgraced https://www.collinsdictionary.com/dictionary/english/disgrac... https://dictionary.cambridge.org/dictionary/english/disgraced https://dictionary.cambridge.org/dictionary/english/disgrace... Perfect example from the second link: "Many thought the disgraced president needed to resign." [edit: added pertinent example]

mhh__ 5y ago

I look forward to David's blog being banned by the government for limiting their free speech...