4 ms·

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 f

by 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.
- k1m 5y ago
  He's being jailed for 8 months for his writing. Hardly escaping legal liability. I don't find that funny, no. As for Jonathan Cook's piece, the double standard he writes about is the fact that those who claim they learned of the identities of the individuals claim they did so not from Craig Murray's writing but from other reporters. That's been completely ignored by this ruling. Do you think we'll see a court case targeting BBC reporters or the writer Dani Garavelli, cited by most respondants as the main source? Isn't it a double standard if they escape jail but Murray doesn't? Certainly looks to me like someone's got an axe to grind when they fixate on the ways Murray may have let readers learn about identities but gives other reporters a pass - especially when public surveys reveal those other reporters to be even more culpable than Murray.
  - Traster 5y ago
    It’s illegal to publish information identifying the accusers it’s not illegal to figure out who the accusers were. There is no double standard. Again, reading from the judgement, the other journalists follow a code of conduct that even Murray acknowledged he had no intention of following. Meanwhile the attempt to go out and try and find people who figured out the identity through other means is entirely immaterial to the case. It’s just not relevant because that’s not what the law is about. It has never been a defence in law that “oh well other people did it too”
    - k1m 5y ago
      > It’s illegal to publish information identifying the accusers it’s not illegal to figure out who the accusers were. This whole case has supposedly been about protecting the identities of people involved in the Salmond case by preventing "jigsaw identification". The court document you posted has this: "Jigsaw identification can occur through the combination of separate pieces of information or details about inter alia the victims, nature and timing of the offences and locations. ...Seemingly innocuous facts published can still pose the risk of jigsaw identification when viewed within the existing matrix of information..." > Meanwhile the attempt to go out and try and find people who figured out the identity through other means is entirely immaterial to the case. It’s just not relevant because that’s not what the law is about. Why is it immaterial? They're claiming Murray did something exceptional. But when you ask (via a standard public poll, not "finding people who figured out the identity through other means" as you claim), those who were able to identify the people involved nearly all point to other media, not Murray, as their source. You can claim that's immaterial and the court has no reason to look at how other reporters revealed identities via jigsaw identification, but I don't think that's very convincing to the general public. And when you take into account Murray's history (as Jonathan Cook does in his article), it looks to many people like he's being singled out and punished for being a thorn in their side for too long. Not to mention that no one has been jailed for jigsaw identification ever before.
      - Traster 5y ago
        They’re absolutely not claiming Murray did something exceptional- that has nothing to do with whether he broke the law. Also let’s drop this stuff about jigsaw identification- the judgement literally says some information was so unique as to singularly identify a person. No jigsaw identification necessary at all - he posted the accusers job and the time she held it, which uniquely identifies her.
DavidWoof 5y ago
I don't have a dog in this fight, but it's pretty revealing that RSF's concerns seem to be limited to the jailing itself and they implicitly accept that he's guilty of a serious offense and deserving of some level of punishment ("alternative measures considered in lieu of his prison sentence"). Even if one shares the RSF's concerns, and I would count myself in that group, that's a far cry from the implication that OP's article is making that the whole case is a sham.
Smithalicious 5y ago
This is weak sauce - yes he broke the law, but journalists should never go to prison even if they break the law, says journalist organization. In recent times journalists have constantly put people in danger by making misleading or downright false claims and engaging in what can only be called "doxxing", then evading responsibility by abusing "freedom of the press" arguments. I hope we get to see many, many more journalists going to prison in the future!

by k1m 5y ago

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.

k1m 5y ago
He's being jailed for 8 months for his writing. Hardly escaping legal liability. I don't find that funny, no. As for Jonathan Cook's piece, the double standard he writes about is the fact that those who claim they learned of the identities of the individuals claim they did so not from Craig Murray's writing but from other reporters. That's been completely ignored by this ruling. Do you think we'll see a court case targeting BBC reporters or the writer Dani Garavelli, cited by most respondants as the main source? Isn't it a double standard if they escape jail but Murray doesn't? Certainly looks to me like someone's got an axe to grind when they fixate on the ways Murray may have let readers learn about identities but gives other reporters a pass - especially when public surveys reveal those other reporters to be even more culpable than Murray.
- Traster 5y ago
  It’s illegal to publish information identifying the accusers it’s not illegal to figure out who the accusers were. There is no double standard. Again, reading from the judgement, the other journalists follow a code of conduct that even Murray acknowledged he had no intention of following. Meanwhile the attempt to go out and try and find people who figured out the identity through other means is entirely immaterial to the case. It’s just not relevant because that’s not what the law is about. It has never been a defence in law that “oh well other people did it too”
  - k1m 5y ago
    > It’s illegal to publish information identifying the accusers it’s not illegal to figure out who the accusers were. This whole case has supposedly been about protecting the identities of people involved in the Salmond case by preventing "jigsaw identification". The court document you posted has this: "Jigsaw identification can occur through the combination of separate pieces of information or details about inter alia the victims, nature and timing of the offences and locations. ...Seemingly innocuous facts published can still pose the risk of jigsaw identification when viewed within the existing matrix of information..." > Meanwhile the attempt to go out and try and find people who figured out the identity through other means is entirely immaterial to the case. It’s just not relevant because that’s not what the law is about. Why is it immaterial? They're claiming Murray did something exceptional. But when you ask (via a standard public poll, not "finding people who figured out the identity through other means" as you claim), those who were able to identify the people involved nearly all point to other media, not Murray, as their source. You can claim that's immaterial and the court has no reason to look at how other reporters revealed identities via jigsaw identification, but I don't think that's very convincing to the general public. And when you take into account Murray's history (as Jonathan Cook does in his article), it looks to many people like he's being singled out and punished for being a thorn in their side for too long. Not to mention that no one has been jailed for jigsaw identification ever before.
    - Traster 5y ago
      They’re absolutely not claiming Murray did something exceptional- that has nothing to do with whether he broke the law. Also let’s drop this stuff about jigsaw identification- the judgement literally says some information was so unique as to singularly identify a person. No jigsaw identification necessary at all - he posted the accusers job and the time she held it, which uniquely identifies her.

DavidWoof 5y ago

I don't have a dog in this fight, but it's pretty revealing that RSF's concerns seem to be limited to the jailing itself and they implicitly accept that he's guilty of a serious offense and deserving of some level of punishment ("alternative measures considered in lieu of his prison sentence"). Even if one shares the RSF's concerns, and I would count myself in that group, that's a far cry from the implication that OP's article is making that the whole case is a sham.

Smithalicious 5y ago

This is weak sauce - yes he broke the law, but journalists should never go to prison even if they break the law, says journalist organization. In recent times journalists have constantly put people in danger by making misleading or downright false claims and engaging in what can only be called "doxxing", then evading responsibility by abusing "freedom of the press" arguments. I hope we get to see many, many more journalists going to prison in the future!