(Britain:) MPs seek to censor the media

[Newsjock]

Source: The Independent

Britain's security agencies and police would be given unprecedented and legally binding powers to ban the media from reporting matters of national security, under proposals being discussed in Whitehall.

The Intelligence and Security Committee, the parliamentary watchdog of the intelligence and security agencies which has a cross-party membership from both Houses, wants to press ministers to introduce legislation that would prevent news outlets from reporting stories deemed by the Government to be against the interests of national security.

The committee also wants to censor reporting of police operations that are deemed to have implications for national security. The ISC is to recommend in its next report, out at the end of the year, that a commission be set up to look into its plans, according to senior Whitehall sources.

... Civil liberties groups say these restrictions would be "very dangerous" and "damaging for public accountability". They also point out that censoring journalists when the leaks come from officials is unjustified.

Read more: http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/mps-seek-to-censor-the-media-1006607.html

[DRoseDARs]

1. Cheney just came in his pants. eom

[Idealism]

2. Thats just asking for corruption of government

If a nation expects to be ignorant and free, it expects what never was and never will be ... The People cannot be safe without information. When the press is free, and every man is able to read, all is safe. - Thomas Jefferson

[pleah]

3. I certainly hope that they don't let this happen. n/t

[onehandle]

4. Sounds like certain MPs need to take a look at V for Vendetta. nt

[bertman]

7. . . . or read Brave New World or 1984.

[Alamuti Lotus]

12. Oh, they've read it

Some choose to take it as a warning, some see it as an instructions manual. :shrug:

[bertman]

18. Good point.

[clixtox]

5. They want what we have right now over here in AmeriKKKa

The UK bamboozlers want to operate like ours are able to do with impunity since almost no one knows, or even seems to care, what is happening all around them. And to them. A compliant, complicit "press" is the prerequisite for controlling the masses simply by controlling the message(s).

Isn't it interesting how many news stories about the foibles/scandals of our politicians in the USA "break" in the British press?

Our M$M is now a propaganda organ for the status quo and the prime distributors of celebrity gossip and other mindless crap.

[whistle]

6. This is about the financial breakdown and the pending collapse of the markets

...and the banking system, I bet :yoiks:

[judasdisney]

10. and the False Flags therein

[MNReformer]

15. Especially the false flags therein.

And the entire Big Brother surveillance system in the U.K. What of that?

[man4allcats]

8. Sounds like they've offered Bush and Cheney

positions in their government since both will soon be out of work here. Not that I'll be sorry to see the little bastards go, but I'd hate to see the Brits start taking in trash like that.

[MetaTrope]

9. They need the same guarantee we have, for freedom of the conservative press

[noise]

11. Government officials always act in good faith?

Look what happened in the US the past seven years. Bush and Cheney used national security claims to conceal their own criminal conduct. When it suited their purposes they leaked classified intel which evidently damaged national security.

Imagine if the Mafia could set up such a racket.

[goforit]

13. Orwellian shall we say?

[jeff30997]

14. And in the meantime...

There are surveillance cameras everywhere.

[KakistocracyHater]

16. See? There & here

It's the Country Club Class AGAINST everyone else. We need to unite & fight back, on the same level as they're operating, always keep this in mind, you can see what they'll do by looking outside our national borders. They keep with their
"Divide & Destroy" pattern, but they can be stopped: legally, lawfully, truly.

[npk]

17. There's nothing wrong with wanting to keep national security information secret

The problem is when some people stretch that beyond what it's purpose and intent to restrict accountability and proper criticism of the government. This measure was proposed across party lines, so it wasn't a blanket used by one party to restrict open discussion and activity of on party, which was the intent of the Bush/Cheney administration.

[LiberalLovinLug]

19. I agree

The problem is who decides what is a "national security" issue. The hawks from both parties decide. And the money men from both sides decide. So if an issue will potentially embarrass a big corporate donor for both sides, Labour or Con, or Dem or Rep, it can be covertly deemed "national security".

If there was a way to have independent over-sight on all decisions, and a record made of all such decisions and released some time later for further review perhaps.

[mojowork_n]

21. It's bogus.

The example they give -- one instance where a kidnapping plot was foiled, and the cops were angry because the 'news got out too quickly, exposing officers in the field, and ruining their interrogation strategy for those they had captured' -- is ludicrous.

It's manufactured outrage, and it's the only example given. As if Osama bin Laden was allowed to get away, because the plot to kidnap and murder one British serviceman had been foiled, but there was an opportunity cost.

What they're trying to do is put up a digital Berlin Wall. The only news that would be free and open, anymore, would be local/municipal/state/regional news.

[npk]

22. My premise was in a perfect world, but ofcourse...

There is always a political agenda to everything. Unfortunate as it may be.

[mojowork_n]

23. England is less perfect than most people suppose, on press issues.

The laws on "libel" are written to almost guarantee a victory for plaintiff's claiming they were libelled by the press, or even in a blog.

That's a huge difference from what we're used to, over here.

http://www-cs-education.stanford.edu/classes/cs201/Projects/defamation-and-the-internet/sections/worldwide/britain.html

[Nihil]

30. You have it the wrong way round.

If you check into it, you will find that the common man benefits here:
an attempt to libel (i.e., print lies about) a non-rich, non-celebrity
person in the UK is far less likely to be successful here than in the USA.

:hi:

[mojowork_n]

32. No, I just disagree.

The common man suffers when the truth is suppressed, and some very rich, very powerful people have protected themselves from press scrutiny -- and gotten their revenge in court.

Two cases come to mind -- the descendant of Tolstoy's who wrote a book that happended to include non-flattering disclosures about the Tory business chairman (many different banks, businesses) Lord Aldington (Toby Low), alleging war crimes after WWII:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Toby_Low,_1st_Baron_Aldington

The conviction was ultimately overturned by the European Court for Human Rights, a few years later.

Also, the whole episode with "LM" magazine -- Living Marxism, Mick Taylor was the editor, I think -- and the news crew in Bosnia.

The little magazine told and printed the truth, but got their teeth kicked in as a result of the libel judgement, by the huge broadcast news organization, that didn't want to have their own biased reporting exposed.

[Nihil]

33. No problem with disagreeing but you could have picked a better example ...

> the descendant of Tolstoy's who wrote a book that happened to include non-flattering
> disclosures about the Tory business chairman (many different banks, businesses)
> Lord Aldington (Toby Low), alleging war crimes after WWII

Whilst that swine *was* responsible for war crimes (along with everyone in the line of
command that ordered that gross betrayal), Tolstoy *wasn't* being sued for his book
but rather because he insisted on standing by a colleague who had expanded Tolstoy's
evidence and used it elsewhere in a personal shitfest ... as your link showed:

> Nigel Watts, who was in dispute with one of Lord Aldington's former companies,
> used this information to further his own cause, printing 10,000 leaflets about
> Aldington's role in the matter and circulating them to politicians and other figures.

When the information from a book gets enlarged as part of the personal feud between
two other parties and when the author of the book decides (unwisely) to stand by his
friend's stupid escapade, you can't use that as an example of a failure of UK law ...

(I don't know anything about the LM issue so will take your word on this but just
wanted to point out that the above wasn't a simple libel case as the original work
was not adjudged to be libellous - it was the extraction and subsequent loss of context
that was seen to be pointed at character assassination rather than revelation of facts.
If they had stuck with the book, the facts would be out on display for the justifiable
vilification of Aldington but Watts took it a few steps too far and dragged Tolstoy
down with him.)

[mojowork_n]

34. OK, on armistance day, flowers in the gun barrels

11:11/11/11/

<global re-boot>

Although I still think the primary purpose of a free press is to keep the public informed -- especially on episodes like this one, with historical significance. There are always "back-stories" of one sort or another, when the original conflict snowballs out of control, and drags in additional combatants, or devolves into personal bickering. That shouldn't be allowed to impede the 4th estate in the performance of its public responsibilities. And of course, the individual rights of people that get caught up in these conflicts should be respected, whatever the back-story.

[iconicgnom]

20. Recently, the Brits have been more eager to give up their liberties than the Yanks.

It's way more than worrisome.

I wonder if the citizens of the English speaking world have the jam to discuss the meaning of "liberty", anymore? If they did, I wonder if the discussion would be allowed under the terms of the "War On Terror" that these countries operate under.

I wonder if the citizens of the English speaking world have the brains to figure out what they've given up, already in this new millennium? I wonder if they have the courage to take it back?

[Endangered Specie]

24. Let that be a reminder to people who think Europe is more free than the US...

[Nihil]

31. Hah ... the British MPs (and friends) are just jealous of their American oppos ...

They've seen how little truth has been revealed to the US public
over the last few decades and have decided that *they* would like
to get away with the same level of BS spreading as Congress & Senate
(not to mention the rest of the Administration).

I'll trade (mostly non-functional) cameras on some streets for the
ability to read the truth from my own country's newspapers!

[mhatrw]

25. WTF?

Complete bs.

[dipsydoodle]

26. You should note that it reads

"introduce legisilation".

Doing so wouldn't guarantee its passage through both the House of Commons and the House of Lords.

edit - missed a word out......doh.

[muriel_volestrangler]

27. This would be more convincing if they could show that DA notices have been ignored

The current system is voluntary - the committee issues a DA-notice, and the media can decide whether to follow it or not. There can be times when discretion is a good idea; but if part of the media decides it isn't, then the story comes out, and everyone can decide if the paper (or whoever) was wrong to do so. And if there's a wide enough spread of media, then if it does get covered up, at least there'll have been a range of opinion that decided to do so.

If it becomes compulsory, then we'll never know what's being covered up, even if parts of the media disagree with it. Bad. Very bad.

[dipsydoodle]

28. You may recall past events

when such "news" covered by notices landed up in continental newspapers anyway.

[No Elephants]

29. Why is Europe going so right wing just as America is coming back to her sense? Wake

up, world.