4 ms·

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 "jigs

by 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.
  - pmyteh 5y ago
    But they do. In Scotland (and the rest of the UK) judges can bar publication of a wide range of material about a court case, in advance or retrospectively, and enforce it by order. That order has penal consequences if broken. If you don't think the order is within the legal bounds of the power, you can appeal it. (News organisations do this semi-regularly). What you shouldn't do is breach it and hope to get off at the contempt hearing.
    - Chris2048 5y ago
      > bar publication of a wide range of material about a court case applied to all but journalists?
  - seanhunter 5y ago
    The ruling that has been linked in another comment and if you read that you can see that in this case neither side disputed the lawful nature of the restrictive order. In other words noone involved claimed the judge didn't have the legal right to tell Murray not to allow identification of the complainers.
    - Chris2048 5y ago
      This post was a response to a maxim (a generalization), not this case.
- k1m 5y ago
  Craig Murray addresses this in his latest post: > I want to touch on one other aspect of liberty in my own imprisonment that appears not understood, or perhaps simply neglected, because somehow the very notion of liberty is slipping from our political culture. One point that features plainly in the troll talking points to be used against me, recurring continually on social media, is that I was ordered to take down material from my blog and refused. > There is an extremely important point here. I have always instantly complied with any order of a court to remove material. What I have not done is comply with instructions from the Crown or Procurator Fiscal to remove material. Because it is over 330 years since the Crown had the right of censorship in Scotland without the intervention of a judge. ... > What is even more terrifying in my case is that the Court explicitly states that I should have followed the directions of the Crown Office in what I did and did not publish, and my failure to not publish as the Crown ordered is an aggravating factor in my sentencing. > If the Crown thinks something I write is in contempt and I think it is not, the Crown and I should stand as equals in court and argue our cases. There should be no presumption I ought to have obeyed the Crown in the first place. That Scottish “justice” has lost sight of this is disastrous, though perhaps as much from stupidity as malice. https://www.craigmurray.org.uk/archives/2021/08/keeping-freedom-alive/ https://www.craigmurray.org.uk/archives/2021/08/keeping-free...

by k1m 5y ago

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.
- pmyteh 5y ago
  But they do. In Scotland (and the rest of the UK) judges can bar publication of a wide range of material about a court case, in advance or retrospectively, and enforce it by order. That order has penal consequences if broken. If you don't think the order is within the legal bounds of the power, you can appeal it. (News organisations do this semi-regularly). What you shouldn't do is breach it and hope to get off at the contempt hearing.
  - Chris2048 5y ago
    > bar publication of a wide range of material about a court case applied to all but journalists?
- seanhunter 5y ago
  The ruling that has been linked in another comment and if you read that you can see that in this case neither side disputed the lawful nature of the restrictive order. In other words noone involved claimed the judge didn't have the legal right to tell Murray not to allow identification of the complainers.
  - Chris2048 5y ago
    This post was a response to a maxim (a generalization), not this case.
k1m 5y ago
Craig Murray addresses this in his latest post: > I want to touch on one other aspect of liberty in my own imprisonment that appears not understood, or perhaps simply neglected, because somehow the very notion of liberty is slipping from our political culture. One point that features plainly in the troll talking points to be used against me, recurring continually on social media, is that I was ordered to take down material from my blog and refused. > There is an extremely important point here. I have always instantly complied with any order of a court to remove material. What I have not done is comply with instructions from the Crown or Procurator Fiscal to remove material. Because it is over 330 years since the Crown had the right of censorship in Scotland without the intervention of a judge. ... > What is even more terrifying in my case is that the Court explicitly states that I should have followed the directions of the Crown Office in what I did and did not publish, and my failure to not publish as the Crown ordered is an aggravating factor in my sentencing. > If the Crown thinks something I write is in contempt and I think it is not, the Crown and I should stand as equals in court and argue our cases. There should be no presumption I ought to have obeyed the Crown in the first place. That Scottish “justice” has lost sight of this is disastrous, though perhaps as much from stupidity as malice. https://www.craigmurray.org.uk/archives/2021/08/keeping-freedom-alive/ https://www.craigmurray.org.uk/archives/2021/08/keeping-free...