3 ms·

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 in

by 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.
- diordiderot 5y ago
  So if the government is torturing people on UK soil for "national security reasons" and a Russian state sponsored journalist leaks it, they should or shouldn't be protected in your world view?
  - hogFeast 5y ago
    Correct, they shouldn't be protected because that is espionage. The "journalist" works for Russia, they are a foreign agent, they are just calling themselves something else. Also, your comment is exactly why people are confused. People read stuff like that on Twitter and think...oh, now MI5 is going to come round to my house, and torture me...why won't the journalists protect us? There are already legal protections against the actions of security services because the UK has a functioning legal system. That is the main protection in our society. Journalists, most of whom spend all day on Twitter sharing salacious bullshit with other journalists, are not the protection (that was my point, in your narrative journalists are the protection but, ironically, they are the main source of misinformation about this bill because their interests are threatened).
    - willcipriano 5y ago
      The US constitution makes indefinite detention without trial illegal, same for torture and warrentless wiretapping. There is no stronger protection possible in our legal system, or any legal system that I am aware of. It is the duty of every public official, solider and police officer to uphold the constitution, they all take oaths to that effect. However all three have happened rather routinely over the past two decades and that's just the stuff we know about. The UK would be wise to learn from our mistake.
    - selfhoster11 5y ago
      > Correct, they shouldn't be protected because that is espionage. The "journalist" works for Russia, they are a foreign agent, they are just calling themselves something else. Does that mean that you support prosecuting Snowden, despite the fact that disclosing mass surveillance is a clearly moral thing to do when the society doesn't know about it? IMO, unless it's wartime, I couldn't care less about the motivations. I care that information has been disclosed at all.

by Jenk 5y ago

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.

diordiderot 5y ago
So if the government is torturing people on UK soil for "national security reasons" and a Russian state sponsored journalist leaks it, they should or shouldn't be protected in your world view?
- hogFeast 5y ago
  Correct, they shouldn't be protected because that is espionage. The "journalist" works for Russia, they are a foreign agent, they are just calling themselves something else. Also, your comment is exactly why people are confused. People read stuff like that on Twitter and think...oh, now MI5 is going to come round to my house, and torture me...why won't the journalists protect us? There are already legal protections against the actions of security services because the UK has a functioning legal system. That is the main protection in our society. Journalists, most of whom spend all day on Twitter sharing salacious bullshit with other journalists, are not the protection (that was my point, in your narrative journalists are the protection but, ironically, they are the main source of misinformation about this bill because their interests are threatened).
  - willcipriano 5y ago
    The US constitution makes indefinite detention without trial illegal, same for torture and warrentless wiretapping. There is no stronger protection possible in our legal system, or any legal system that I am aware of. It is the duty of every public official, solider and police officer to uphold the constitution, they all take oaths to that effect. However all three have happened rather routinely over the past two decades and that's just the stuff we know about. The UK would be wise to learn from our mistake.
  - selfhoster11 5y ago
    > Correct, they shouldn't be protected because that is espionage. The "journalist" works for Russia, they are a foreign agent, they are just calling themselves something else. Does that mean that you support prosecuting Snowden, despite the fact that disclosing mass surveillance is a clearly moral thing to do when the society doesn't know about it? IMO, unless it's wartime, I couldn't care less about the motivations. I care that information has been disclosed at all.