3 ms·
In the comments Rudsbridger, in all sincerity, is asking why a newspaper should have fought a government request to destroy source material. I mean this is the
by foobarqux 13y ago
In the comments Rudsbridger, in all sincerity, is asking why a newspaper should have fought a government request to destroy source material.
I mean this is the strongest position the Guardian could have challenged the government from: No risk to the story, public visibility, government has nothing to directly gain from having the material destroyed. What is being fought over is purely principle and a demonstration of obedience: Gov asks and Guardian rolls over.
I presume we can expect the Guardian to routinely delete source material upon gov request if it hasn't been doing so already?
- lostlogin 13y agoOr is it just complying because of the stupidity of the request? Because nothing was actually lost and nothing was deleted as such. A copy got wrecked, so what?
- vidarh 13y agoI think I would have complied just because I'd want to see just how far down the rabbit hole they'd go. It'd be like getting front row seats to Terry Gilliams Brazil - The Musical (I'd set my normal hate of musicals aside if that ever became reality).
- foobarqux 13y agoBoth parties knew there were copies elsewhere. The act was a demonstration of compliance which has reinforced a relationship of subservience to the government.
- ttctciyf 13y agoNot wanting to sound too cynical, but choosing to let them break out the sledgehammers does seem to have made a pretty good story in itself, doesn't it?