6 ms·

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.

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.