5 ms·

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

by 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.
    - k1m 5y ago
      > They’re absolutely not claiming Murray did something exceptional - that has nothing to do with whether he broke the law. Fine, but don't expect people to take you or your law seriously if out of a bunch of people who break the law in a similar way, you choose to punish and make an example of only one of them. The one who's had the least impact in identifying the people you claim to want to protect, and the one who's been a thorn in your side for many years. > No jigsaw identification necessary at all This makes no sense. First you claim they're "absolutely not claiming Murray did something exceptional", and in the next line you write he did something so unique that no jigsaw identification was necessary at all. So then why is he being charged with jigsaw identification? The first person ever to be jailed for it.
      - Traster 5y ago
        >The one who's had the least impact in identifying the people you claim to want to protect, and the one who's been a thorn in your side for many years. Ah no, see this isn't the same thing at all. The standard for the law is whether people can tell from your reporting who the person is. Sure, more people may have identified the person from some other reporting, but that's highly likely to be becuase the other reporting is in national newspapers and the like, not the 150 people who visit Murray's website. It doesn't matter if more people actually identify the accusers from another source, it matters what the reporting is - and Murray reporting details that were literally uniquely identifying an individual (and actually kept up comments in response to his blog that literally identified them). >First you claim they're "absolutely not claiming Murray did something exceptional", and in the next line you write he did something so unique that no jigsaw identification was necessary at all. So then why is he being charged with jigsaw identification? He wasn't. This comes down to the fact you're listening to disingenous talking points. He's not charged with "jigsaw identification". The uniquely prosecutable thing he did was he identified the acccusers after the court order saying their identity should be protected. The whole "jigsaw identification" thing is gish galloping. His supporters have made up a nonsense talking point to defend him.

by k1m 5y ago

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.
  - k1m 5y ago
    > They’re absolutely not claiming Murray did something exceptional - that has nothing to do with whether he broke the law. Fine, but don't expect people to take you or your law seriously if out of a bunch of people who break the law in a similar way, you choose to punish and make an example of only one of them. The one who's had the least impact in identifying the people you claim to want to protect, and the one who's been a thorn in your side for many years. > No jigsaw identification necessary at all This makes no sense. First you claim they're "absolutely not claiming Murray did something exceptional", and in the next line you write he did something so unique that no jigsaw identification was necessary at all. So then why is he being charged with jigsaw identification? The first person ever to be jailed for it.
    - Traster 5y ago
      >The one who's had the least impact in identifying the people you claim to want to protect, and the one who's been a thorn in your side for many years. Ah no, see this isn't the same thing at all. The standard for the law is whether people can tell from your reporting who the person is. Sure, more people may have identified the person from some other reporting, but that's highly likely to be becuase the other reporting is in national newspapers and the like, not the 150 people who visit Murray's website. It doesn't matter if more people actually identify the accusers from another source, it matters what the reporting is - and Murray reporting details that were literally uniquely identifying an individual (and actually kept up comments in response to his blog that literally identified them). >First you claim they're "absolutely not claiming Murray did something exceptional", and in the next line you write he did something so unique that no jigsaw identification was necessary at all. So then why is he being charged with jigsaw identification? He wasn't. This comes down to the fact you're listening to disingenous talking points. He's not charged with "jigsaw identification". The uniquely prosecutable thing he did was he identified the acccusers after the court order saying their identity should be protected. The whole "jigsaw identification" thing is gish galloping. His supporters have made up a nonsense talking point to defend him.