3 ms·
Exactly. To the extent that he wasn't involved in journalism, he also wasn't involved in the disclosure, or threat of disclosure...". That is to say, if he wa
by jlgreco 13y ago
Exactly. To the extent that he wasn't involved in journalism, he also wasn't involved in the disclosure, or threat of disclosure...".
That is to say, if he wasn't participating in journalism, then how can it be said that he was disclosing, or threatening to disclose, anything?
They really did equate journalism with terrorism. The title, while editorialized, is not an exaggeration.
- DanBC 13y agoFor some values of "they", not including (yet) the court where this document was read out, right? Because at the moment that value of "they" includes (from the article) Scotland Yard, and (from outside the article) a few other similar organisations (maybe GCHQ, MI5, MI6, etc) But certainly not "the UK". So the title, as well as being editorialized, is an exaggeration. EDIT: But let's see what happens with the court case, I guess.
- trevelyan 13y agoPretty much any member of parliament introducing a non-trivial bill into the house for debate is a terrorist under this definition as well.