12 ms·

The D-Notice: A British Way of Censoring the Press

151 points by caret 4y ago

tomalpha 4y ago
The author is clearly against the extradition of Julian Assange, and the piece comes across as very much written in that context. To be clear: I'm not offering an opinion either way on the rights and wrongs of that, but the piece itself comes down very much on one side of the fence.
- colordrops 4y ago
  What's the implication? That the author is hiding the fact that this is an opinion piece? Or that it's odd to be against the extradition? It's called The Dissenter and they explicitly mention that they support whistleblowers in their about page.
  - tomalpha 4y ago
    I don't think it's going out of its way to hide the fact that it's an opinion piece. I wanted to highlight to someone unfamiliar with the case and issues (however few that may be around these parts), that it is an opinion piece. It makes assertions through a lens of a bias to one side of the case. There's nothing inherently wrong with that. Using the word "bias" isn't intended by me here as a slight - we're all biased to a greater or lesser degree about everything. But a casual reader should be aware of it without having to e.g. navigate to a separate "about" page :)
    - cryptonector 4y ago
      Perhaps your highlighting an obvious fact is itself evidence that you do in fact have an opinion and did share it while saying otherwise, possibly unconsciously.
- stephen_g 4y ago
  The Assange case seems relevant and topical. And regardless, what side of the fence would you expect somebody writing an article about press freedom and censorship to be on? To support extraditing to the US somebody who has never lived or worked there, after it was revealed US officials literally planned to kidnap and/or assassinate him? [1]. And only for the charge of revealing war crimes (apart from some trumped up “hacking” charges that the key witness now admitted lying about? [2]). I really do think somebody would have to be either hopelessly, desperately naive or deliberately lying to themselves to believe Assange could receive a fair trial in the US, and I don’t think it’s reasonable to assert that the US has any kind of jurisdiction over him. 1. https://www.theverge.com/2021/9/27/22696436/cia-kidnap-julian-assange-assassination-pompeo-trump https://www.theverge.com/2021/9/27/22696436/cia-kidnap-julia... 2. https://stundin.is/grein/13627/ https://stundin.is/grein/13627/
  - vkou 4y ago
    > And only for the charge of revealing war crimes (apart from some trumped up “hacking” charges that the key witness now admitted lying about? [2]). I've read the allegations. If the allegations are true, he's guilty of hacking. It does not seem to be a case of the law being perverted past its intent. I'm sure the extradition and prosecution is politically motivated, but the problem with doing something that's squarely, dead-to-rights illegal that also happens to piss off the government is that they are within their rights to put you away for doing it. It'd be one thing if his supporters accepted the dead-to-rights-guilty part, and were making the claim that it was something akin to civil disobedience - illegal, but in service to a higher cause. Unfortunately, most of them are instead bending over backwards to argue that he can't actually guilty of anything. It's not very convincing. Probably because the most noteworthy accomplishment of that higher cause seems to be 'spending the next decade being a shill for the Kremlin' and 'helping Trump win 2016'. Sorry, but not sorry - I can't say I have an iota of sympathy for the architects of either.
    - mistermann 4y ago
      > It'd be one thing if his supporters accepted the dead-to-rights-guilty part, and were making the claim that it was something akin to civil disobedience - illegal, but in service to a higher cause. Unfortunately, most of them are instead bending over backwards to argue that he can't actually guilty of anything. It's not very convincing. Who, precisely, are you referring to here?
KineticLensman 4y ago
Should I read anything sinister into the complete lack of comments (after one hour, as I write this) on this article?
- tomcatfish 4y ago
  No. I'm being paid off by a different guy
- bell-cot 4y ago
  No. It doesn't help that it struck me as drawn-out and disjointed. Worse - I never got the sense that the public would much care if the facts that the DMSA is keeping secret could be freely published in Britain. Nor (post-Snowden, and having read about some of America's secret gag orders) that the UK is up to anything all that bad (by the modern-day western world's very low standards).
- Veen 4y ago
  Perhaps no one has anything to say about it. If you're eager for an opinion: I was already familiar with D-Notices—they've been around in some form since 1912—and I think they're a necessary tool to stop the UK press publishing information they shouldn't publish. I don't believe they are egregiously abused although there is scope for abuse and they have been abused in the past. Super-injunctions are more worrying to me because there is even less democratic accountability. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Super-injunctions_in_English_law https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Super-injunctions_in_English_l...
- mike_hearn 4y ago
  D-Notices aren't quite as obscure as the article makes out. I've known they existed for many years, I'm not quite sure why but there's no particular reason I'd know about them. I'm not a journalist and never was. The Official Secrets Act is probably bad law, it's one of the many places where the USA has superior laws that are much better at keeping bad government in check. The various attempts to expand censorship in the UK are also very bad, in my view. The D-Notice system is difficult to really get worked up about because, as this exposé makes clear, it's: a. Voluntary. b. Sometimes ignored, even by major outlets like the Guardian. c. Largely made up of journalists themselves. d. So shadowy that they publish photos of themselves and upload meeting notes to government websites. e. Apparently very tightly concerned with stuff like publishing the names of spies, soldiers, troop movements, etc. The classical sorts of information that has a very direct and obvious reason for being kept out of the press. The article tries to build a case that it's being used in over-broad ways like with Assange, but honestly I don't buy it. The media doesn't need some shadowy committee to stop it covering the Assange story properly. At some point it became received wisdom in media circles to hate him and journalists need no incentive to bury stories if they find them inconvenient. The Guardian in particular has a long running and well documented vendetta against Assange. You'd see the same approach if D-Notices existed or not.
notavalleyman 4y ago
I wanted to get behind this more but there were a few sections that had me doubting. 1. It says the UK media largely ignored the Snowden leaks due to a D-Notice - the source supplied didn't really back that up and it didn't sound right to me. Maybe someone can share examples of Snowden-leak-related stories which would have been in UK public interest but were only covered abroad? 2. It says the Steele dossier is largely discredited - I wasn't aware of any discrediting, let alone total. I don't know why the author thought this spin was necessary for the article. Edit to add 3. It says that a D Notice was used to suppress a link between Sergei Skirpal's handler and Orbis Intelligence, while the only sources provided negate that
- aww_dang 4y ago
  > It says the Steele dossier is largely discredited - I wasn't aware of any discrediting, let alone total. I don't know why the author thought this spin was necessary for the article. There are at least two ways to interpret this: 1)If the Steele dossier is legitimate, then the author is propagandizing the issue. 2)If the Steele dossier is discredited (in some circles) propaganda, but you are not aware of the deception, then perhaps it isn't spin. This experience could be a reflection of the information you consume. In the interest of avoiding inflammatory discussions, I'll leave it to other commentators to discuss the veracity of either side.
  - notavalleyman 4y ago
    > but you are not aware of the deception, then perhaps it isn't spin You are quite right that I am lacking complete awareness, so I think it would behoove the author to at least link to something to back up their statement, and without sourcing it does feel like spin. Similarly, there's a section of the article where the author suggests D-notices were used to suppress a link between Sergei Skripal's alleged handler and the Orbis Intelligence company whose founder wrote the dossier. There is again no souring or backing up this allegation. I didn't understand here either, why the author is using these unsourced points to discuss D Notices
    - 4y ago
AveburySutton 4y ago
Just to put this window Mr.Overton left us where it belongs, it is a criminal offence in Britain to say anything deemed homophobic even within the confines of your own domicile even to your own family members. Law described: https://www.christian.org.uk/news/views-expressed-in-private-could-be-caught-by-scots-hate-crime-bill/ https://www.christian.org.uk/news/views-expressed-in-private... Law passed: https://www.gov.scot/news/hate-crime-bill-passed/ https://www.gov.scot/news/hate-crime-bill-passed/
StanislavPetrov 4y ago
D-notices certainly aren't the only way the British censors the press. They famously sent agents to the headquarters of The Guardian and forced them to physically destroy the Snowden hard drives in the basement in front of them. https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2014/jan/31/footage-released-guardian-editors-snowden-hard-drives-gchq https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2014/jan/31/footage-rele...
- zahllos 4y ago
  Yes. The reason for this is that the Official Secrets Act makes it illegal for anyone to keep or share anything that is "official information" under it except for "official purposes" i.e. for your government job on a government computer. There is no opt out for journalism and it applies regardless of whether you "sign" it or not. IANAL, but my understanding is the sole thing you can do legally if handed or finding classified documents is to take them to a police station and hand them over. I would guess that the UK Gov knew full well that destroying these documents in the UK would not stop reporting, but doing nothing might set a precedent that they're not keen on.
zahllos 4y ago
I would reply to a sibling comment, but I believe this ought to be top level. I believe the author is conflating "D-Notices may be used to ask the press to self-censor" versus "'the man' is censoring Assange". So far as I am aware, nothing in the Assange trial would actually warrant a D-Notice, and if sensitive information were to be presented to the court it would be done in closed session anyway, since they at least theoretically have that option (they'd have to convince the judge of the need for this, if I understand correctly).
- cryptonector 4y ago
  Why is the Assange extradition case not a good time to mention D-notices?
  - zahllos 4y ago
    That's not quite what I said. I said the article's insinuation that D-Notices are some mysterious gag order and are being used as part of the UK Government's campaign of terror on Assange is wrong. I might be reading too much into the implications, but I don't think I am, feel free to disagree. What D-Notices are is effectively a polite request not to publish certain sensitive information. Editors at newspapers can decide whether or not to comply with the request. Have a look here: https://www.dsma.uk/how-the-system-works/ https://www.dsma.uk/how-the-system-works/ and notice the explicit "DSMA notices have no legal standing". The very idea that this is a secret censorship conspiracy is laughable. I think there is an interesting question arising from the Assange case as to who can claim to be a journalist and what protections this provides, but I do not think D-Notices fit anywhere in this. They're not even a law.
at_a_remove 4y ago
This shows up in the sci-fi/horror film Lifeforce. "Gentlemen, that last remark is not for publication. This is a D-notice situation."
8bitsrule 4y ago
Of course there's nothing new about this censorship, except widerspread knowledge of it. The D-Notice began in 1912. [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/DSMA-Notice https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/DSMA-Notice]
barrbid8 4y ago
Kit klarenberg is a Russian government “journalist”. So that explains the pro trump spin and snide fury at guardian journos or bbc journos.
shashurup 4y ago
Sorry for not adding up to the discussion, but I can't help https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=B9tzoGFszog https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=B9tzoGFszog
rospaya 4y ago
One of the articles linked criticises the UK for spreading misinformation about an upcoming Russian invasion of Ukraine, just a few days before it actually happened. https://thedissenter.org/british-officials-launder-us-intel-russian-coup-plot-ukraine/ https://thedissenter.org/british-officials-launder-us-intel-...
Sporktacular 4y ago
This entire site is full of poorly sourced conspiratorial garbage. Pity as it might hurt Assange's cause.

151 points by caret 4y ago

The author is clearly against the extradition of Julian Assange, and the piece comes across as very much written in that context. To be clear: I'm not offering an opinion either way on the rights and wrongs of that, but the piece itself comes down very much on one side of the fence.

colordrops 4y ago
What's the implication? That the author is hiding the fact that this is an opinion piece? Or that it's odd to be against the extradition? It's called The Dissenter and they explicitly mention that they support whistleblowers in their about page.
- tomalpha 4y ago
  I don't think it's going out of its way to hide the fact that it's an opinion piece. I wanted to highlight to someone unfamiliar with the case and issues (however few that may be around these parts), that it is an opinion piece. It makes assertions through a lens of a bias to one side of the case. There's nothing inherently wrong with that. Using the word "bias" isn't intended by me here as a slight - we're all biased to a greater or lesser degree about everything. But a casual reader should be aware of it without having to e.g. navigate to a separate "about" page :)
  - cryptonector 4y ago
    Perhaps your highlighting an obvious fact is itself evidence that you do in fact have an opinion and did share it while saying otherwise, possibly unconsciously.
stephen_g 4y ago
The Assange case seems relevant and topical. And regardless, what side of the fence would you expect somebody writing an article about press freedom and censorship to be on? To support extraditing to the US somebody who has never lived or worked there, after it was revealed US officials literally planned to kidnap and/or assassinate him? [1]. And only for the charge of revealing war crimes (apart from some trumped up “hacking” charges that the key witness now admitted lying about? [2]). I really do think somebody would have to be either hopelessly, desperately naive or deliberately lying to themselves to believe Assange could receive a fair trial in the US, and I don’t think it’s reasonable to assert that the US has any kind of jurisdiction over him. 1. https://www.theverge.com/2021/9/27/22696436/cia-kidnap-julian-assange-assassination-pompeo-trump https://www.theverge.com/2021/9/27/22696436/cia-kidnap-julia... 2. https://stundin.is/grein/13627/ https://stundin.is/grein/13627/
- vkou 4y ago
  > And only for the charge of revealing war crimes (apart from some trumped up “hacking” charges that the key witness now admitted lying about? [2]). I've read the allegations. If the allegations are true, he's guilty of hacking. It does not seem to be a case of the law being perverted past its intent. I'm sure the extradition and prosecution is politically motivated, but the problem with doing something that's squarely, dead-to-rights illegal that also happens to piss off the government is that they are within their rights to put you away for doing it. It'd be one thing if his supporters accepted the dead-to-rights-guilty part, and were making the claim that it was something akin to civil disobedience - illegal, but in service to a higher cause. Unfortunately, most of them are instead bending over backwards to argue that he can't actually guilty of anything. It's not very convincing. Probably because the most noteworthy accomplishment of that higher cause seems to be 'spending the next decade being a shill for the Kremlin' and 'helping Trump win 2016'. Sorry, but not sorry - I can't say I have an iota of sympathy for the architects of either.
  - mistermann 4y ago
    > It'd be one thing if his supporters accepted the dead-to-rights-guilty part, and were making the claim that it was something akin to civil disobedience - illegal, but in service to a higher cause. Unfortunately, most of them are instead bending over backwards to argue that he can't actually guilty of anything. It's not very convincing. Who, precisely, are you referring to here?

KineticLensman 4y ago

Should I read anything sinister into the complete lack of comments (after one hour, as I write this) on this article?

tomcatfish 4y ago
No. I'm being paid off by a different guy
bell-cot 4y ago
No. It doesn't help that it struck me as drawn-out and disjointed. Worse - I never got the sense that the public would much care if the facts that the DMSA is keeping secret could be freely published in Britain. Nor (post-Snowden, and having read about some of America's secret gag orders) that the UK is up to anything all that bad (by the modern-day western world's very low standards).
Veen 4y ago
Perhaps no one has anything to say about it. If you're eager for an opinion: I was already familiar with D-Notices—they've been around in some form since 1912—and I think they're a necessary tool to stop the UK press publishing information they shouldn't publish. I don't believe they are egregiously abused although there is scope for abuse and they have been abused in the past. Super-injunctions are more worrying to me because there is even less democratic accountability. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Super-injunctions_in_English_law https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Super-injunctions_in_English_l...
mike_hearn 4y ago
D-Notices aren't quite as obscure as the article makes out. I've known they existed for many years, I'm not quite sure why but there's no particular reason I'd know about them. I'm not a journalist and never was. The Official Secrets Act is probably bad law, it's one of the many places where the USA has superior laws that are much better at keeping bad government in check. The various attempts to expand censorship in the UK are also very bad, in my view. The D-Notice system is difficult to really get worked up about because, as this exposé makes clear, it's: a. Voluntary. b. Sometimes ignored, even by major outlets like the Guardian. c. Largely made up of journalists themselves. d. So shadowy that they publish photos of themselves and upload meeting notes to government websites. e. Apparently very tightly concerned with stuff like publishing the names of spies, soldiers, troop movements, etc. The classical sorts of information that has a very direct and obvious reason for being kept out of the press. The article tries to build a case that it's being used in over-broad ways like with Assange, but honestly I don't buy it. The media doesn't need some shadowy committee to stop it covering the Assange story properly. At some point it became received wisdom in media circles to hate him and journalists need no incentive to bury stories if they find them inconvenient. The Guardian in particular has a long running and well documented vendetta against Assange. You'd see the same approach if D-Notices existed or not.

notavalleyman 4y ago

I wanted to get behind this more but there were a few sections that had me doubting. 1. It says the UK media largely ignored the Snowden leaks due to a D-Notice - the source supplied didn't really back that up and it didn't sound right to me. Maybe someone can share examples of Snowden-leak-related stories which would have been in UK public interest but were only covered abroad? 2. It says the Steele dossier is largely discredited - I wasn't aware of any discrediting, let alone total. I don't know why the author thought this spin was necessary for the article. Edit to add 3. It says that a D Notice was used to suppress a link between Sergei Skirpal's handler and Orbis Intelligence, while the only sources provided negate that

aww_dang 4y ago
> It says the Steele dossier is largely discredited - I wasn't aware of any discrediting, let alone total. I don't know why the author thought this spin was necessary for the article. There are at least two ways to interpret this: 1)If the Steele dossier is legitimate, then the author is propagandizing the issue. 2)If the Steele dossier is discredited (in some circles) propaganda, but you are not aware of the deception, then perhaps it isn't spin. This experience could be a reflection of the information you consume. In the interest of avoiding inflammatory discussions, I'll leave it to other commentators to discuss the veracity of either side.
- notavalleyman 4y ago
  > but you are not aware of the deception, then perhaps it isn't spin You are quite right that I am lacking complete awareness, so I think it would behoove the author to at least link to something to back up their statement, and without sourcing it does feel like spin. Similarly, there's a section of the article where the author suggests D-notices were used to suppress a link between Sergei Skripal's alleged handler and the Orbis Intelligence company whose founder wrote the dossier. There is again no souring or backing up this allegation. I didn't understand here either, why the author is using these unsourced points to discuss D Notices
  - 4y ago

AveburySutton 4y ago

Just to put this window Mr.Overton left us where it belongs, it is a criminal offence in Britain to say anything deemed homophobic even within the confines of your own domicile even to your own family members. Law described: https://www.christian.org.uk/news/views-expressed-in-private-could-be-caught-by-scots-hate-crime-bill/ https://www.christian.org.uk/news/views-expressed-in-private... Law passed: https://www.gov.scot/news/hate-crime-bill-passed/ https://www.gov.scot/news/hate-crime-bill-passed/

StanislavPetrov 4y ago

D-notices certainly aren't the only way the British censors the press. They famously sent agents to the headquarters of The Guardian and forced them to physically destroy the Snowden hard drives in the basement in front of them. https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2014/jan/31/footage-released-guardian-editors-snowden-hard-drives-gchq https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2014/jan/31/footage-rele...

zahllos 4y ago
Yes. The reason for this is that the Official Secrets Act makes it illegal for anyone to keep or share anything that is "official information" under it except for "official purposes" i.e. for your government job on a government computer. There is no opt out for journalism and it applies regardless of whether you "sign" it or not. IANAL, but my understanding is the sole thing you can do legally if handed or finding classified documents is to take them to a police station and hand them over. I would guess that the UK Gov knew full well that destroying these documents in the UK would not stop reporting, but doing nothing might set a precedent that they're not keen on.

zahllos 4y ago

I would reply to a sibling comment, but I believe this ought to be top level. I believe the author is conflating "D-Notices may be used to ask the press to self-censor" versus "'the man' is censoring Assange". So far as I am aware, nothing in the Assange trial would actually warrant a D-Notice, and if sensitive information were to be presented to the court it would be done in closed session anyway, since they at least theoretically have that option (they'd have to convince the judge of the need for this, if I understand correctly).

cryptonector 4y ago
Why is the Assange extradition case not a good time to mention D-notices?
- zahllos 4y ago
  That's not quite what I said. I said the article's insinuation that D-Notices are some mysterious gag order and are being used as part of the UK Government's campaign of terror on Assange is wrong. I might be reading too much into the implications, but I don't think I am, feel free to disagree. What D-Notices are is effectively a polite request not to publish certain sensitive information. Editors at newspapers can decide whether or not to comply with the request. Have a look here: https://www.dsma.uk/how-the-system-works/ https://www.dsma.uk/how-the-system-works/ and notice the explicit "DSMA notices have no legal standing". The very idea that this is a secret censorship conspiracy is laughable. I think there is an interesting question arising from the Assange case as to who can claim to be a journalist and what protections this provides, but I do not think D-Notices fit anywhere in this. They're not even a law.

at_a_remove 4y ago

This shows up in the sci-fi/horror film Lifeforce. "Gentlemen, that last remark is not for publication. This is a D-notice situation."

8bitsrule 4y ago

Of course there's nothing new about this censorship, except widerspread knowledge of it. The D-Notice began in 1912. [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/DSMA-Notice https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/DSMA-Notice]

barrbid8 4y ago

Kit klarenberg is a Russian government “journalist”. So that explains the pro trump spin and snide fury at guardian journos or bbc journos.

shashurup 4y ago

Sorry for not adding up to the discussion, but I can't help https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=B9tzoGFszog https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=B9tzoGFszog

rospaya 4y ago

One of the articles linked criticises the UK for spreading misinformation about an upcoming Russian invasion of Ukraine, just a few days before it actually happened. https://thedissenter.org/british-officials-launder-us-intel-russian-coup-plot-ukraine/ https://thedissenter.org/british-officials-launder-us-intel-...

Sporktacular 4y ago

This entire site is full of poorly sourced conspiratorial garbage. Pity as it might hurt Assange's cause.