9 ms·

Murray's jailing is latest move in a battle to snuff out independent journalism

106 points by k1m 5y ago

the_optimist 5y ago
Who’s up for prison next? Jonathan Cook perhaps?
new_realist 5y ago
Looks like Murray was in contempt of court for doxxing female witnesses in a sexual assault trial, in defiance of a judge’s order.
- ianpurton 5y ago
  My understanding is that they were doxxed by piecing together multiple news stories. I guess journalists each giving away pieces to the puzzle. Looks like Murray has been categorized as not a journalist and gets a prison sentence.
  - orra 5y ago
    > My understanding is that they were doxxed by piecing together multiple news stories. Murray deliberately published information to doxx the sexual assault complainers. He doubled down after being warned multiple times he has breaching the court order > Looks like Murray has been categorized as not a journalist Whether Murray is a journalist or not is entirely irrelevant. The court order Murray broke applies to everybody.
    - k1m 5y ago
      > The court order Murray broke applies to everybody. It clearly doesn't as two surveys showed those who claim they were able to identify individuals from the reporting of the case, said they were able to do so from reports from the BBC and other corporate media. None of those reporters are facing jail. Again, what Jonathan Cook is pointing out is exactly the opposite of what you claim. The court order does not apply to everybody: "Murray's writings appear to have had very little impact on the identification of any of the accusers. Among named individual journalists, Dani Garavelli, who wrote about the trial for Scotland on Sunday and the London Review of Books, was cited 15 times more often by respondents than Murray as helping them to identify Salmond's accusers."
      - new_realist 5y ago
        Of course these other journalists were named more often in surveys: they have a much broader reach. Name recognition is not the issue; ethical standards are.
        k1m 5y ago
        Craig Murray is being jailed because he allegedly helped reveal the identities of individuals through his reporting. There's nothing indicating his reporting revealed any more information about those identities than reporters from the BBC and other outlets. In fact, surveys show those other reporters did far more to help people identify those individuals. But they're not being jailed. Craig Murray has been singled out. Nothing ethical about that.
    - twic 5y ago
      > Murray deliberately published information to doxx the sexual assault complainers. That's a strong claim that i haven't seen before. Why do you believe it was deliberate? > The court order Murray broke applies to everybody. What is your explanation for why the order has not been applied to any other journalists, when we know that other journalists contributed much more more to people learning the identities of the complainants?
      - orra 5y ago
        > Why do you believe it was deliberate? “The courts warned him to take his blog down or face the consequences of identifying the women but he refused.” https://www.dailyrecord.co.uk/news/politics/called-scots-activist-craig-murray-24088797 https://www.dailyrecord.co.uk/news/politics/called-scots-act... > What is your explanation for why the order has not been applied to any other journalists Actually, no, that's untrue. IIRC, the Spectator was warned or investigated for some material it published.
    - pricechild 5y ago
      Two of Murray's claims in his defence were: https://www.craigmurray.org.uk/archives/2021/01/my-trial-and-freedom-of-speech/ https://www.craigmurray.org.uk/archives/2021/01/my-trial-and... > 5. The court order protecting identities did not come into being before 10 March 2020. Most of the Crown’s alleged examples are before this date. We absolutely deny my articles enable jigsaw identification, but even if they did they were not illegal at the time of publication. together with: > 6. Up until 10 March 2020, had I wished to publish identities I could have done so quite legally in the articles before that date which the Lord Advocate cites. Unlike England, there is no law in Scotland barring publication of witness identity absent a specific court order. The fact I did not do so in the year between my learning identities and the ban coming into force, in several articles on the case where I could legally have published the identities, make nonsense the Lord Advocate’s contention that I deliberately gave clues. Much has been made of point 6, and I can understand not being convinced by it. But is there not truth to point 5? I guess not, since he was found guilty. I'd be interested in reading why this was discounted.
      - pmyteh 5y ago
        Online publication is deemed 'continuous' as long as the material is up. 'It's an old article' isn't a defence if you're on notice that it needs to be taken down. Incidentally, the robots.txt file for one of Britain's less reputable papers (IIRC The Sun) used to have a specific list of story URLs not to crawl which I suspect were those they'd been ordered to take down after libel actions etc.
    - LatteLazy 5y ago
      Edit: yeah he was warned by the court multiple times. He should have edited his pieces. Original comment: Wait, when was he warned?
  - Traster 5y ago
    From the court's ruling > specified the job held by her at the time in question. The specificity is such that to specify her as holding it when she did, and in the context which is given, is tantamount to naming her. This is a clear breach of the order. It's like saying I haven't named told you I slept with Boris Johnson, but I have told you I've slept with the Prime Minister. It's what a stupid person would think is a way of skirting a court order not to name someone.
- k1m 5y ago
  Jigsaw identification isn't same as doxxing. The issue here is the double standards, as Jonathan Cook points out: > In finding Murray guilty of so-called "jigsaw identification", Lady Dorrian did not make a distinction between what Murray wrote about the Salmond case and what approved, corporate journalists wrote. > That is for good reason. Two surveys have shown that most of those following the Salmond trial who believe they identified one or more of his accusers did so from the coverage of the corporate media, especially the BBC. Murray's writings appear to have had very little impact on the identification of any of the accusers. Among named individual journalists, Dani Garavelli, who wrote about the trial for Scotland on Sunday and the London Review of Books, was cited 15 times more often by respondents than Murray as helping them to identify Salmond's accusers. > Rather, Lady Dorrian’s distinction was between who gets protected when identification occurs. Write for the Times or the Guardian, or broadcast on the BBC, where the audience reach is enormous, and the courts will protect you from prosecution. Write about the same issues for a blog, and you risk being hounded into prison.
  - new_realist 5y ago
    Please, apply some critical thinking and stop regurgitating this propaganda. If a judge tells you to stop doing something, you stop doing it, especially after being warned multiple times. Whether your reporting ended up being the critical missing piece is irrelevant.
    - Chris2048 5y ago
      > If a judge tells you to stop doing something, you stop doing Even if they have no legal right to?
      - treeman79 5y ago
        Judge can do anything they want, regardless of laws or sanity. Judge orders you to wear a purple hat, you wear a purple hat. You can seek relief from other judges if you don’t like it. Anything else and you go to jail. My experience doing tech support for them when I was young is that they are the most arrogant people imaginable.
4t3gar 5y ago
Why not throw some covid into this thoughtful discussion? COVID COVID COVID COVID COVID COVID COVID COVID COVID COVID COVID COVID COVID COVID COVID COVID COVID COVID COVID COVID COVID COVID COVID COVID COVID COVID COVID COVID COVID COVID COVID COVID COVID COVID COVID COVID COVID COVID COVID COVID COVID COVID COVID COVID COVID
anonymousiam 5y ago
A subtle point that might be missed is that Murray's reports of the Alex Salmond trial and Salmond's innocence lend weight to the theory that Salmond's accusers may have been part of a coordinated political attack. The big government machine is striking back.
- new_realist 5y ago
  If someone is found innocent at trial, it is therefore a coordinated political attack? That’s a stretch.
  - LatteLazy 5y ago
    Depends if months of bad press and accusations damaged his political standing. I don't like Salmon, but a smear is a smear even if no one goes to prison...
  - pessimizer 5y ago
    > If someone is found innocent at trial, it is therefore a coordinated political attack? You surely didn't read that claim or any related claim in the comment you're replying to.
- hogFeast 5y ago
  I am 100% in the camp that someone should have resigned but to say that there was a "coordinated political attack" makes no sense. Salmond had already made himself totally irrelevant. He was lobbing grenades from the sidelines through Cherry and McAskill but he wasn't very effective (Salmond had electoral success but was personally never popular, with women in particular). And all this ignores the fact that the person who put Salmond in jeopardy was Salmond by acting like a massive creep. What happened in the case was largely a function of total incompetence by the Scottish Civil Service/govt. If you are familiar with Scotland, that is standard. Several people from the Civil Service should have resigned, they didn't. Sturgeon's testimony was obviously inconsistent at several points. This isn't the same thing as a "political attack" (again, be totally clear, Salmond has no political role...he isn't a politician, he is someone who used to be a politician). Also, there is no "big government machine" in Scotland, and it most certainly does not control the courts if it did exists. That just isn't how the law works in Scotland or the UK (if you needed evidence of this, both govts have had run ins with the courts...if this was true then why was Salmond found innocent).
Traster 5y ago
I'd recommend people actually look at the ruling, becuase it goes straight against some of the talking points from Murray and his friends, and in some cases is pretty funny.[1] For example on page 17, the judge concludes that Murray didn't breach the rules about reporting on a jurors dismissal because what Murray wrote was "bizarre" and "unfounded". Ie, he completely lied about it and that actually meant he didn't breach the law. It also notes that not only did his articles reveal the accusers details, but the commenters on his articles literally named the accusers. He also literally states in his own testimony to the court that he intended to attempt to reveal the identities without being in contempt of court. The whole thing is just pretty funny - he's basically saying "Oh well I didn't say their names" and the court is saying "Yeah that's not the standard of the court order, you made it easy to identify them". I mean honestly, he literally told people what on the accusers job was, and when she did that job, meaning that there was only 1 possible person he could've been talking about. [1]https://www.scotcourts.gov.uk/docs/default-source/cos-general-docs/pdf-docs-for-opinions/2021hcj002.pdf?sfvrsn=4c39efdd_0 https://www.scotcourts.gov.uk/docs/default-source/cos-genera...
- k1m 5y ago
  What you don't get by reading this ruling is the full context given by Jonathan Cook and the double standards he highlights. > The whole thing is just pretty funny Glad you can laught it off. Meanwhile, Reporters Without Borders have expressed grave concerns: "Craig Murray's prison sentence on charges related to his blogging is disproportionate and highly concerning. RSF emphasises that journalistic activity should not lead to prison sentences anywhere; imprisonment in connection with any journalistic activity should only ever be a measure of absolute last resort - if at all. It is certainly not what we would expect in a country committed to protecting media freedom and the safety of journalists." - https://rsf.org/en/news/uk-blogger-craig-murray-jailed-eight-months-over-jigsaw-identification https://rsf.org/en/news/uk-blogger-craig-murray-jailed-eight...
  - Traster 5y ago
    You don't think it's funny that he escaped legal liability because the court came to the conclusion that what he wrote was so mis-representative that it couldn't be considered an actual breach? I personally thinks that both funny, and indicative that the judge is being balanced, rather than disproportionate. As for Jonathon Cook - the double standard he claims doesn't exist in the judgement.
Joeboy 5y ago
> Murray is also the first person to be jailed in Britain for contempt of court in half a century That is not true.
gpcr1949 5y ago
I've enjoyed some of Murray's writing, in particular he did some quite good court reporting related to Assange. I have also been intrigued by his non-orthodox interpretations of that chemical weapons incident in Salisbury, though some might call these pieces outrageous conspiracy writing. I did not really follow the stuff around Salmond so I can't comment on what happened there. In any case, it seems a bit severe to me to jail this guy for hinting at information that major press apparently also made easy to find. At least, this is what is claimed. He is quite old and apparently his health isn't the best either, so I would have expected something like house arrest or a suspended sentence at worst.

106 points by k1m 5y ago

Who’s up for prison next? Jonathan Cook perhaps?

Looks like Murray was in contempt of court for doxxing female witnesses in a sexual assault trial, in defiance of a judge’s order.

ianpurton 5y ago
My understanding is that they were doxxed by piecing together multiple news stories. I guess journalists each giving away pieces to the puzzle. Looks like Murray has been categorized as not a journalist and gets a prison sentence.
- orra 5y ago
  > My understanding is that they were doxxed by piecing together multiple news stories. Murray deliberately published information to doxx the sexual assault complainers. He doubled down after being warned multiple times he has breaching the court order > Looks like Murray has been categorized as not a journalist Whether Murray is a journalist or not is entirely irrelevant. The court order Murray broke applies to everybody.
  - k1m 5y ago
    > The court order Murray broke applies to everybody. It clearly doesn't as two surveys showed those who claim they were able to identify individuals from the reporting of the case, said they were able to do so from reports from the BBC and other corporate media. None of those reporters are facing jail. Again, what Jonathan Cook is pointing out is exactly the opposite of what you claim. The court order does not apply to everybody: "Murray's writings appear to have had very little impact on the identification of any of the accusers. Among named individual journalists, Dani Garavelli, who wrote about the trial for Scotland on Sunday and the London Review of Books, was cited 15 times more often by respondents than Murray as helping them to identify Salmond's accusers."
    - new_realist 5y ago
      Of course these other journalists were named more often in surveys: they have a much broader reach. Name recognition is not the issue; ethical standards are.
      - k1m 5y ago
        Craig Murray is being jailed because he allegedly helped reveal the identities of individuals through his reporting. There's nothing indicating his reporting revealed any more information about those identities than reporters from the BBC and other outlets. In fact, surveys show those other reporters did far more to help people identify those individuals. But they're not being jailed. Craig Murray has been singled out. Nothing ethical about that.
  - twic 5y ago
    > Murray deliberately published information to doxx the sexual assault complainers. That's a strong claim that i haven't seen before. Why do you believe it was deliberate? > The court order Murray broke applies to everybody. What is your explanation for why the order has not been applied to any other journalists, when we know that other journalists contributed much more more to people learning the identities of the complainants?
    - orra 5y ago
      > Why do you believe it was deliberate? “The courts warned him to take his blog down or face the consequences of identifying the women but he refused.” https://www.dailyrecord.co.uk/news/politics/called-scots-activist-craig-murray-24088797 https://www.dailyrecord.co.uk/news/politics/called-scots-act... > What is your explanation for why the order has not been applied to any other journalists Actually, no, that's untrue. IIRC, the Spectator was warned or investigated for some material it published.
  - pricechild 5y ago
    Two of Murray's claims in his defence were: https://www.craigmurray.org.uk/archives/2021/01/my-trial-and-freedom-of-speech/ https://www.craigmurray.org.uk/archives/2021/01/my-trial-and... > 5. The court order protecting identities did not come into being before 10 March 2020. Most of the Crown’s alleged examples are before this date. We absolutely deny my articles enable jigsaw identification, but even if they did they were not illegal at the time of publication. together with: > 6. Up until 10 March 2020, had I wished to publish identities I could have done so quite legally in the articles before that date which the Lord Advocate cites. Unlike England, there is no law in Scotland barring publication of witness identity absent a specific court order. The fact I did not do so in the year between my learning identities and the ban coming into force, in several articles on the case where I could legally have published the identities, make nonsense the Lord Advocate’s contention that I deliberately gave clues. Much has been made of point 6, and I can understand not being convinced by it. But is there not truth to point 5? I guess not, since he was found guilty. I'd be interested in reading why this was discounted.
    - pmyteh 5y ago
      Online publication is deemed 'continuous' as long as the material is up. 'It's an old article' isn't a defence if you're on notice that it needs to be taken down. Incidentally, the robots.txt file for one of Britain's less reputable papers (IIRC The Sun) used to have a specific list of story URLs not to crawl which I suspect were those they'd been ordered to take down after libel actions etc.
  - LatteLazy 5y ago
    Edit: yeah he was warned by the court multiple times. He should have edited his pieces. Original comment: Wait, when was he warned?
- Traster 5y ago
  From the court's ruling > specified the job held by her at the time in question. The specificity is such that to specify her as holding it when she did, and in the context which is given, is tantamount to naming her. This is a clear breach of the order. It's like saying I haven't named told you I slept with Boris Johnson, but I have told you I've slept with the Prime Minister. It's what a stupid person would think is a way of skirting a court order not to name someone.
k1m 5y ago
Jigsaw identification isn't same as doxxing. The issue here is the double standards, as Jonathan Cook points out: > In finding Murray guilty of so-called "jigsaw identification", Lady Dorrian did not make a distinction between what Murray wrote about the Salmond case and what approved, corporate journalists wrote. > That is for good reason. Two surveys have shown that most of those following the Salmond trial who believe they identified one or more of his accusers did so from the coverage of the corporate media, especially the BBC. Murray's writings appear to have had very little impact on the identification of any of the accusers. Among named individual journalists, Dani Garavelli, who wrote about the trial for Scotland on Sunday and the London Review of Books, was cited 15 times more often by respondents than Murray as helping them to identify Salmond's accusers. > Rather, Lady Dorrian’s distinction was between who gets protected when identification occurs. Write for the Times or the Guardian, or broadcast on the BBC, where the audience reach is enormous, and the courts will protect you from prosecution. Write about the same issues for a blog, and you risk being hounded into prison.
- new_realist 5y ago
  Please, apply some critical thinking and stop regurgitating this propaganda. If a judge tells you to stop doing something, you stop doing it, especially after being warned multiple times. Whether your reporting ended up being the critical missing piece is irrelevant.
  - Chris2048 5y ago
    > If a judge tells you to stop doing something, you stop doing Even if they have no legal right to?
    - treeman79 5y ago
      Judge can do anything they want, regardless of laws or sanity. Judge orders you to wear a purple hat, you wear a purple hat. You can seek relief from other judges if you don’t like it. Anything else and you go to jail. My experience doing tech support for them when I was young is that they are the most arrogant people imaginable.

4t3gar 5y ago

Why not throw some covid into this thoughtful discussion? COVID COVID COVID COVID COVID COVID COVID COVID COVID COVID COVID COVID COVID COVID COVID COVID COVID COVID COVID COVID COVID COVID COVID COVID COVID COVID COVID COVID COVID COVID COVID COVID COVID COVID COVID COVID COVID COVID COVID COVID COVID COVID COVID COVID COVID

anonymousiam 5y ago

A subtle point that might be missed is that Murray's reports of the Alex Salmond trial and Salmond's innocence lend weight to the theory that Salmond's accusers may have been part of a coordinated political attack. The big government machine is striking back.

new_realist 5y ago
If someone is found innocent at trial, it is therefore a coordinated political attack? That’s a stretch.
- LatteLazy 5y ago
  Depends if months of bad press and accusations damaged his political standing. I don't like Salmon, but a smear is a smear even if no one goes to prison...
- pessimizer 5y ago
  > If someone is found innocent at trial, it is therefore a coordinated political attack? You surely didn't read that claim or any related claim in the comment you're replying to.
hogFeast 5y ago
I am 100% in the camp that someone should have resigned but to say that there was a "coordinated political attack" makes no sense. Salmond had already made himself totally irrelevant. He was lobbing grenades from the sidelines through Cherry and McAskill but he wasn't very effective (Salmond had electoral success but was personally never popular, with women in particular). And all this ignores the fact that the person who put Salmond in jeopardy was Salmond by acting like a massive creep. What happened in the case was largely a function of total incompetence by the Scottish Civil Service/govt. If you are familiar with Scotland, that is standard. Several people from the Civil Service should have resigned, they didn't. Sturgeon's testimony was obviously inconsistent at several points. This isn't the same thing as a "political attack" (again, be totally clear, Salmond has no political role...he isn't a politician, he is someone who used to be a politician). Also, there is no "big government machine" in Scotland, and it most certainly does not control the courts if it did exists. That just isn't how the law works in Scotland or the UK (if you needed evidence of this, both govts have had run ins with the courts...if this was true then why was Salmond found innocent).

Traster 5y ago

I'd recommend people actually look at the ruling, becuase it goes straight against some of the talking points from Murray and his friends, and in some cases is pretty funny.[1] For example on page 17, the judge concludes that Murray didn't breach the rules about reporting on a jurors dismissal because what Murray wrote was "bizarre" and "unfounded". Ie, he completely lied about it and that actually meant he didn't breach the law. It also notes that not only did his articles reveal the accusers details, but the commenters on his articles literally named the accusers. He also literally states in his own testimony to the court that he intended to attempt to reveal the identities without being in contempt of court. The whole thing is just pretty funny - he's basically saying "Oh well I didn't say their names" and the court is saying "Yeah that's not the standard of the court order, you made it easy to identify them". I mean honestly, he literally told people what on the accusers job was, and when she did that job, meaning that there was only 1 possible person he could've been talking about. [1]https://www.scotcourts.gov.uk/docs/default-source/cos-general-docs/pdf-docs-for-opinions/2021hcj002.pdf?sfvrsn=4c39efdd_0 https://www.scotcourts.gov.uk/docs/default-source/cos-genera...

k1m 5y ago
What you don't get by reading this ruling is the full context given by Jonathan Cook and the double standards he highlights. > The whole thing is just pretty funny Glad you can laught it off. Meanwhile, Reporters Without Borders have expressed grave concerns: "Craig Murray's prison sentence on charges related to his blogging is disproportionate and highly concerning. RSF emphasises that journalistic activity should not lead to prison sentences anywhere; imprisonment in connection with any journalistic activity should only ever be a measure of absolute last resort - if at all. It is certainly not what we would expect in a country committed to protecting media freedom and the safety of journalists." - https://rsf.org/en/news/uk-blogger-craig-murray-jailed-eight-months-over-jigsaw-identification https://rsf.org/en/news/uk-blogger-craig-murray-jailed-eight...
- Traster 5y ago
  You don't think it's funny that he escaped legal liability because the court came to the conclusion that what he wrote was so mis-representative that it couldn't be considered an actual breach? I personally thinks that both funny, and indicative that the judge is being balanced, rather than disproportionate. As for Jonathon Cook - the double standard he claims doesn't exist in the judgement.

Joeboy 5y ago

> Murray is also the first person to be jailed in Britain for contempt of court in half a century That is not true.

gpcr1949 5y ago

I've enjoyed some of Murray's writing, in particular he did some quite good court reporting related to Assange. I have also been intrigued by his non-orthodox interpretations of that chemical weapons incident in Salisbury, though some might call these pieces outrageous conspiracy writing. I did not really follow the stuff around Salmond so I can't comment on what happened there. In any case, it seems a bit severe to me to jail this guy for hinting at information that major press apparently also made easy to find. At least, this is what is claimed. He is quite old and apparently his health isn't the best either, so I would have expected something like house arrest or a suspended sentence at worst.