5 ms·

He didn't directly disclose any name the accusation is he wrote multiple clues from which witness could be identified . I haven't seen a clear explanation of ho

He didn't directly disclose any name the accusation is he wrote multiple clues from which witness could be identified . I haven't seen a clear explanation of how it was identifiable. Even if that was true, jailing for media contempt is very very rare in U.K. and the timing given his involvement with Wikileaks case is suspect.

throwaway0a5e 5y ago
So a classic case of "enforcing laws we don't usually enforce and stretching the law to do so because we don't like you"?
- dpwm 5y ago
  From the decision on the application for permission to appeal to the UK Supreme Court [0]: > The applicant describes himself as a “journalist in new media”. Whatever that may involve, it is relevant to distinguish his position from that of the mainstream press, which is regulated, and subject to codes of practice and ethics in a way in which those writing as the applicant does are not. To the extent that the submissions for the applicant make comparisons with other press contempts, and the role of mainstream journalists, this is a factor which should be recognised. [0] https://www.scotcourts.gov.uk/docs/default-source/cos-general-docs/pdf-docs-for-opinions/2021hcj3.pdf?sfvrsn=0 https://www.scotcourts.gov.uk/docs/default-source/cos-genera...
  - croes 5y ago
    >subject to codes of practice and ethics "The code is more what you'd call 'guidelines' than actual rules"
  - TheOtherHobbes 5y ago
    Meanwhile in the regulated press: https://www.independent.co.uk/news/media/press/the-sun-and-daily-mail-fuelling-prejudice-racist-violence-hate-crime-speech-uk-ecri-report-a7351856.html https://www.independent.co.uk/news/media/press/the-sun-and-d...
- stjohnswarts 5y ago
  This is almost certainly the case. The judge in this case most likely is influenced by those who this guy revealed as corrupt. The powers that be do not like for their friends to have a hard time. This judge is most likely in on it.
- raincom 5y ago
  In fact, that's how collusion and correction happens in the West. In other words, "discretion" is for sale for the powerful. Prosecution uses discretion to not prosecute the powerful; Judges use discretion to suppress evidence; etc.
LorenPechtel 5y ago
It's quite understandable that he could have done this by accident. People avoid directly identifying someone they're not supposed to identify but do not realize that they leaked enough details to uniquely identify them. If he's guilty of it we of course do not see the evidence--posting the evidence would amount to the same crime that he was convicted of.
- manquer 5y ago
  It seems awfully convenient for the government that evidence cannot be discussed. Either he has already leaked and the name is out there and his 8 month sentence is justified then it shouldn't matter that we can discuss or he has kind of "leaked" but no one really knows anything so we shouldn't have access to the evidence in which case this ruling and sentence is not warranted it cannot be both right ? The supreme court refused to hear his appeal on the basis that new media is different from traditional media, that doesn't seem right. Supreme courts are there to take novel new cases and set precedence on how the laws are to be interpreted. Drawing that distinction and not taking the case to define how such media for contempt has to be handled does not add up. The impact is beyond just this sentence, it affects lot of journalism on how contempt laws work. In U.K. media freedom (when it comes to courts) is already not great with stuff like super injunctions. This kind of vague ruling without clearly defining what is the kind of mistake me made that is illegal does not help.
  - pmyteh 5y ago
    The judgment isn't vague at all. It sets out, in 90 paragraphs, the legal and factual basis for the case, ruling much of it against the crown (mainly on the basis of delay) and some against Murray. And it goes through each criticised post and sets out on what basis it was (or was not) found to be a contempt. Now. You and I don't have the posts, because I assume they've been deleted. That makes it hard if we want to second guess the judges. But Murray has them, and the court also does. And frankly the import of the ruling is straightforward for journalists to follow, too: don't publish information that could identify rape complainants in breach of a court order. Which is routine for court reporters, frankly. And FWIW a superinjunction is particularly easy to follow - don't publish anything about the injunction or the underlying matter. Is that reasonable? In my view no. I think they should never have been created. But they aren't unclear, just Draconian. And they don't apply in the criminal jurisdiction, or in Scotland, so I'm not sure they're very relevant here.
jlarocco 5y ago
> He didn't directly disclose any name the accusation is he wrote multiple clues from which witness could be identified . Well, judges aren't stupid. I guess he's finding out the hard way.
FireBeyond 5y ago
He was warned that his blog posts and his hinting at identifying people was considered contempt... ... and then he wrote a Yes Minister-esque fanfic which fairly bluntly painted very direct "clues" to those identities, and then told his readers "read this carefully and you'll get those identities", and then acted shocked when the court didn't say "Damn you, Craig, you foiled and outsmarted us!", but instead "Posting 'nudge nudge wink wink' hints to people is effectively the same thing. You know it, because you told people that's what it was, and we know it. So we're treating it the same".

throwaway0a5e 5y ago

So a classic case of "enforcing laws we don't usually enforce and stretching the law to do so because we don't like you"?

dpwm 5y ago
From the decision on the application for permission to appeal to the UK Supreme Court [0]: > The applicant describes himself as a “journalist in new media”. Whatever that may involve, it is relevant to distinguish his position from that of the mainstream press, which is regulated, and subject to codes of practice and ethics in a way in which those writing as the applicant does are not. To the extent that the submissions for the applicant make comparisons with other press contempts, and the role of mainstream journalists, this is a factor which should be recognised. [0] https://www.scotcourts.gov.uk/docs/default-source/cos-general-docs/pdf-docs-for-opinions/2021hcj3.pdf?sfvrsn=0 https://www.scotcourts.gov.uk/docs/default-source/cos-genera...
- croes 5y ago
  >subject to codes of practice and ethics "The code is more what you'd call 'guidelines' than actual rules"
- TheOtherHobbes 5y ago
  Meanwhile in the regulated press: https://www.independent.co.uk/news/media/press/the-sun-and-daily-mail-fuelling-prejudice-racist-violence-hate-crime-speech-uk-ecri-report-a7351856.html https://www.independent.co.uk/news/media/press/the-sun-and-d...
stjohnswarts 5y ago
This is almost certainly the case. The judge in this case most likely is influenced by those who this guy revealed as corrupt. The powers that be do not like for their friends to have a hard time. This judge is most likely in on it.
raincom 5y ago
In fact, that's how collusion and correction happens in the West. In other words, "discretion" is for sale for the powerful. Prosecution uses discretion to not prosecute the powerful; Judges use discretion to suppress evidence; etc.

LorenPechtel 5y ago

It's quite understandable that he could have done this by accident. People avoid directly identifying someone they're not supposed to identify but do not realize that they leaked enough details to uniquely identify them. If he's guilty of it we of course do not see the evidence--posting the evidence would amount to the same crime that he was convicted of.

manquer 5y ago
It seems awfully convenient for the government that evidence cannot be discussed. Either he has already leaked and the name is out there and his 8 month sentence is justified then it shouldn't matter that we can discuss or he has kind of "leaked" but no one really knows anything so we shouldn't have access to the evidence in which case this ruling and sentence is not warranted it cannot be both right ? The supreme court refused to hear his appeal on the basis that new media is different from traditional media, that doesn't seem right. Supreme courts are there to take novel new cases and set precedence on how the laws are to be interpreted. Drawing that distinction and not taking the case to define how such media for contempt has to be handled does not add up. The impact is beyond just this sentence, it affects lot of journalism on how contempt laws work. In U.K. media freedom (when it comes to courts) is already not great with stuff like super injunctions. This kind of vague ruling without clearly defining what is the kind of mistake me made that is illegal does not help.
- pmyteh 5y ago
  The judgment isn't vague at all. It sets out, in 90 paragraphs, the legal and factual basis for the case, ruling much of it against the crown (mainly on the basis of delay) and some against Murray. And it goes through each criticised post and sets out on what basis it was (or was not) found to be a contempt. Now. You and I don't have the posts, because I assume they've been deleted. That makes it hard if we want to second guess the judges. But Murray has them, and the court also does. And frankly the import of the ruling is straightforward for journalists to follow, too: don't publish information that could identify rape complainants in breach of a court order. Which is routine for court reporters, frankly. And FWIW a superinjunction is particularly easy to follow - don't publish anything about the injunction or the underlying matter. Is that reasonable? In my view no. I think they should never have been created. But they aren't unclear, just Draconian. And they don't apply in the criminal jurisdiction, or in Scotland, so I'm not sure they're very relevant here.

jlarocco 5y ago

> He didn't directly disclose any name the accusation is he wrote multiple clues from which witness could be identified . Well, judges aren't stupid. I guess he's finding out the hard way.

FireBeyond 5y ago

He was warned that his blog posts and his hinting at identifying people was considered contempt... ... and then he wrote a Yes Minister-esque fanfic which fairly bluntly painted very direct "clues" to those identities, and then told his readers "read this carefully and you'll get those identities", and then acted shocked when the court didn't say "Damn you, Craig, you foiled and outsmarted us!", but instead "Posting 'nudge nudge wink wink' hints to people is effectively the same thing. You know it, because you told people that's what it was, and we know it. So we're treating it the same".