4 ms·
Title is misleading. He wasn't jailed for whistleblowing. He was jailed for apparently revealing identities of victims. Not sure about the specifics, I haven't
by thereddaikon 5y ago
Title is misleading. He wasn't jailed for whistleblowing. He was jailed for apparently revealing identities of victims. Not sure about the specifics, I haven't been following the case and I'm not familiar with it. Sounds like its pretty contentious. All I know is many places including the UK have a far more restricted concept of freedom of speech than the US does. So its probably a lot easier for them to jail journalists over what they publish
- deleted 5y ago[deleted]
- croes 5y agoHe was acquitted, so either they were misjudgements or the victims were just accusers.
- thereddaikon 5y agoGood point.
- billytetrud 5y agoWhat part of the title is misleading exactly? The title doesn't say he is going to jail because whistleblowing is illegal. But he is indeed going to jail for things about how his whistle blowing was done. I think it's misleading to call the OP's title misleading
- thereddaikon 5y agoThe title implies he was jailed for being a whistleblower. If you read it without having any prior knowledge of who this guy is or why he was being prosecuted that's how it sounds.
- billytetrud 5y agoIt seems pretty clear that he is being jailed for being a whistleblowers. The case brought against him seems incredibly flimsy. Its retaliation, plain and simple.
- mattigames 5y ago"revealing the identity of the victims"... Yeah, such identities were "revealed" by jigsawing documents which are part of the whistleblow, not because he gave their names or anything alike but by inference of the readers, who just happen to be extremely biased against the whistleblower. So yeah, it couldn't be clearer that he is being jailed for being a whistleblower.