UK MPs seek powers to censor press

[mongrel]

The Parliamentary Intelligence and Security Committee 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.


http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk...a-1006607.html

It is already difficult to hold the UK government into account, see Sir Christopher Meyer's criticisms of two years ago.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/media/2006...mofinformation

If these people get their way, it will be next to impossible.

[Heinz Guderian]

The Parliamentary Intelligence and Security Committee 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.


http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk...a-1006607.html

It is already difficult to hold the UK government into account, see Sir Christopher Meyer's criticisms of two years ago.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/media/2006...mofinformation

If these people get their way, it will be next to impossible.

this is bad. i might even get off my arse and email my mp for once.

[the Black Prince]

this is good. very good. Finally, its come to the attention of people in charge that it is in no ones interest for newspapers to be allowed to print stories that could compromise national security until such time as any risk has past.

The current understanding is good and useful, but cannot be enforced if the government chooses to ignore it, nor enforceable in any measure against US press.


Take Prince Harry in Afghanistan for example? The reporting of his presence there put his life in danger as well as the lives of all those he was serving with and meant he was forced to immediately leave. Now, this was american media that released the news, so this would be a perfect law to apply a certain extradition treaty too and remind the US that it works both ways



But in a more general sense, I do think this law would be a good one. That said, I'm not certain it should be in the hands of the government. The ICS is already cleared to have this information, perhaps they should be the ones to decide the level of news embargo necessary.

[Heinz Guderian]

The British media complied with the Prince Harry thing. We dont need new laws which give the government the right to censor the media. Besides, as you intimated, other media networks can report on any issue they like. The law would be unenforceable in the internet age.

I remember the Prince Charles saga a few years ago that the British media wouldnt report (something to do with some sex crime?), it was simply a case of logging onto an American news source.

As for a national security matter, i'm sure a newspaper/media source would weigh up the blowback of reporting a story which would compromise national security. Perhaps the risk of an outcry/boycott by the public serves as a form of self-censorship? The media should always have the right to publish a story, especially if it is in the national interest.

[mongrel]

this is good. very good. Finally, its come to the attention of people in charge that it is in no ones interest for newspapers to be allowed to print stories that could compromise national security until such time as any risk has past.

The current understanding is good and useful, but cannot be enforced if the government chooses to ignore it, nor enforceable in any measure against US press.


Take Prince Harry in Afghanistan for example? The reporting of his presence there put his life in danger as well as the lives of all those he was serving with and meant he was forced to immediately leave. Now, this was american media that released the news, so this would be a perfect law to apply a certain extradition treaty too and remind the US that it works both ways



But in a more general sense, I do think this law would be a good one. That said, I'm not certain it should be in the hands of the government. The ICS is already cleared to have this information, perhaps they should be the ones to decide the level of news embargo necessary.

What about Jean Paul De Menezes? If they had this law available at the time, the Met would have got away with a cover up.

The D-notice system is more than adequate for dealing with sensitive issues. Most, if not all papers seem to have voluntarily complied with police/defence wishes since 1912. Under the present system the press can rightfully disregard any notice that is politically motivated or against the public interest.

[Last Roman]

this is good. very good. Finally, its come to the attention of people in charge that it is in no ones interest for newspapers to be allowed to print stories that could compromise national security until such time as any risk has past.

yes, hurray for secret government! I mean, it works so well for us, why not Britain too?

[Garrigan]

this is bad. i might even get off my arse and email my mp for once.

Pah. That wouldnt do me any good, mine's some new boy Lib Dem....

[Hansa]

Pah. That wouldnt do me any good, mine's some new boy Lib Dem....

I think a Lib Dem would be exactly the type of MP to voice his concern regarding an issue such as the matter at hand. Liberals tend to be up in arms over infringements of the liberty of the press.

[Sidmen]

Take Prince Harry in Afghanistan for example? The reporting of his presence there put his life in danger as well as the lives of all those he was serving with and meant he was forced to immediately leave. Now, this was american media that released the news, so this would be a perfect law to apply a certain extradition treaty too and remind the US that it works both ways

Except, that the US gov has pretty much no power to limit the media whatsoever. Can't pressure a rock to give you water by threatening to turn it into dust.

[Fianóglach]

While I don't like the media, and for the most part despise the way that they report on the military, and basically out and out lie sometimes. I also don't think the government should have any more control over them than the next person. Freedom might not be convienient, expedient, or at all practical for military purposes, but that's what we fight for. At the same time, I think there should be severe penalties for media types that put soldiers in danger either through reports about locations and operations. Accountability is one thign the media seems to ignore when they are out with us on the beach.

[The King Of Peasants]

Guy Fawkes for pm... Seriously though as a sort of libertarian american this is just wrong as its taking away freedom of the press.

[Sidmen]

While I don't like the media, and for the most part despise the way that they report on the military, and basically out and out lie sometimes. I also don't think the government should have any more control over them than the next person. Freedom might not be convienient, expedient, or at all practical for military purposes, but that's what we fight for. At the same time, I think there should be severe penalties for media types that put soldiers in danger either through reports about locations and operations. Accountability is one thign the media seems to ignore when they are out with us on the beach.

I could support a delay on military reporting, for instance, making sure that an operation is over for at least a day before reporters start broadcasting the locations of troops and whats going on. (Unless, the military doesn't really care - such as during the attack on Baghdad.)

[Каие]

I must agree with mongrel on this, since we don't have a supreme court, we cannot give that power to the already elective dictatorship that is the cabinet. Given the governments record they would have used it to suppress the WMD scandal and the de Menezes shooting.

[Hunter Makoy]

I must agree with mongrel on this, since we don't have a supreme court, we cannot give that power to the already elective dictatorship that is the cabinet. Given the governments record they would have used it to suppress the WMD scandal and the de Menezes shooting.

kb8 wat would u say Uk's freedom of the press compares with that in the U.S. as it stands right now? does the press already have any type privilege with sources? i know even here that can be waved in certain extreme cases (like leaking a CIA operative), but in general wat kind of level of protection does the press already have?

i agree with Scar Face that issues of true national importance should be protected: giving away secrets, giving away troop movements, leaking spies, and things of that nature. but apparently this looks to be something that can be very widely interpreted. with many laws, vagueness is usually problem number 1.

[Каие]

kb8 wat would u say Uk's freedom of the press compares with that in the U.S. as it stands right now? does the press already have any type privilege with sources? i know even here that can be waved in certain extreme cases (like leaking a CIA operative), but in general wat kind of level of protection does the press already have?

At the moment it's very flexible, to my knowledge they can print anything, but generally they don't have access to official spies or anything due to the official secrets act. If the papers found out the identity of a spy, they would be made to sign the official secrets act, thus barring them from revealing it.

Libel and slander still apply of course.

[Hunter Makoy]

At the moment it's very flexible, to my knowledge they can print anything, but generally they don't have access to official spies or anything due to the official secrets act. If the papers found out the identity of a spy, they would be made to sign the official secrets act, thus barring them from revealing it.

Libel and slander still apply of course.

it looks like its pretty much in line with ours here. I don't see the need in them needing this bill then. if people already have the protection of libel and slander, and matters of national security are already protected, thats about all thats needed.

this looks more like the government trying to keep things secret that ordinarily don't need to be kept secret.

[Martin N]

Freedom of the press is important, Without it they can choose what the news tells us, Looks like the uk is getting just like us, Getting rid of our liberties and seeking laws like censorship and id cards, NOT good

[danzig]

I must agree with mongrel on this, since we don't have a supreme court, we cannot give that power to the already elective dictatorship that is the cabinet. Given the governments record they would have used it to suppress the WMD scandal and the de Menezes shooting.

Yeah Id be uneasy of seeing that power given here in the US even with the supreme court to keep it in check, without the existences of a legal body like that in Uk I think you'd have to be mental to even *think* it was a good idea. I can see with regards to military deployments, location etc but a general "national security" thing is just asking for it to be abused.

[Plan C]

OK, at the risk of sounding dramatic - couple this bit of news with the existing attitude of British government towards protesters and it's ID database plans and this does come across as seriously worrying.
National Security is such a broad term it can encompass (and has in the past, around the globe) individual interests of people in power.

Also, what worries me is the fact that this is another example of British government seeking to pass the blame onto someone else. They quote the "Gamble" fiasco as justification for this proposed legistlation clearly forgetting that leaks MUST HAVE originated from government agencies. Just because SY never identified the source of the leak doesn't mean they should now gag the press.

MI5 and MI6 have shown their complete ineptitude in evaluating their recruits in the past year. The sheer scale of security breaches in those two agencies has been staggering and no wonder it's gone down with the public worse than a cup of cold sick. It seems to me that they now try to cover up their recent and future mishaps by muzzling the press.

Go one then, see how well it goes down this time...

[Scar Face]

I don't really care if they censor things of national importance- I think we have something similar here in Canada- though I do have apprehensions about the potential for it to be used to silence trivial cases, or used as rational for further curtailing of speech rights.

Potentially troubling. Time will tell.