Freedom Of The Press? UK's The Guardian Barred From Reporting On Parliament

from the how-do-you-report-on-being-banned-from-reporting? dept

Tue, Oct 13th 2009 5:05am — Mike Masnick

Over in the UK, the Guardian has apparently been barred from reporting on a certain action in Parliament (Update: read below). But how do you even report on being barred from reporting on a particular subject without reporting on it. Watch the linguistic gymnastics The Guardian goes through:

The Guardian has been prevented from reporting parliamentary proceedings on legal grounds which appear to call into question privileges guaranteeing free speech established under the 1688 Bill of Rights.

Today's published Commons order papers contain a question to be answered by a minister later this week. The Guardian is prevented from identifying the MP who has asked the question, what the question is, which minister might answer it, or where the question is to be found.

The Guardian is also forbidden from telling its readers why the paper is prevented -- for the first time in memory -- from reporting parliament. Legal obstacles, which cannot be identified, involve proceedings, which cannot be mentioned, on behalf of a client who must remain secret.

The only fact the Guardian can report is that the case involves the London solicitors Carter-Ruck, who specialise in suing the media for clients, who include individuals or global corporations.

Yet another case of chilling effects in the form of lawyers suing over coverage they don't like. Of course, we're not barred from reporting on anything, and checking through some Parliament webpages turns up the following list of questions, including the following:

Paul Farrelly (Newcastle-under-Lyme): To ask the Secretary of State for Justice, what assessment he has made of the effectiveness of legislation to protect (a) whistleblowers and (b) press freedom following the injunctions obtained in the High Court by (i) Barclays and Freshfields solicitors on 19 March 2009 on the publication of internal Barclays reports documenting alleged tax avoidance schemes and (ii) Trafigura and Carter-Ruck solicitors on 11 September 2009 on the publication of the Minton report on the alleged dumping of toxic waste in the Ivory Coast, commissioned by Trafigura.

This certainly implies that The Guardian has been barred due to this original story of how British oil trader Trafigura was offering to pay "historic damages" to 31,000 people injured in the dumping of toxic waste in Africa.

Of course, my guess is that Trafigura and Carter-Ruck are about to learn about The Streisand Effect, and UK politicians are about to get another lesson on why its libel laws need to be fixed. In the meantime, in the absence of all of this, how many people would have heard about this whole Trafigura affair? How many more people are about to become aware of it?

Update: After this story got spread all over the internet (especially on Twitter), it looks like Carter-Ruck backed down. Of course... the end result? Much worse than if they had never tried to gag the newspapers. A lot more people are aware of the story. Why do lawyers still think banning such things will work?

Thank you for reading this Techdirt post. With so many things competing for everyone’s attention these days, we really appreciate you giving us your time. We work hard every day to put quality content out there for our community.

Techdirt is one of the few remaining truly independent media outlets. We do not have a giant corporation behind us, and we rely heavily on our community to support us, in an age when advertisers are increasingly uninterested in sponsoring small, independent sites — especially a site like ours that is unwilling to pull punches in its reporting and analysis.

While other websites have resorted to paywalls, registration requirements, and increasingly annoying/intrusive advertising, we have always kept Techdirt open and available to anyone. But in order to continue doing so, we need your support. We offer a variety of ways for our readers to support us, from direct donations to special subscriptions and cool merchandise — and every little bit helps. Thank you.

–The Techdirt Team

Filed Under: freedom of the press, gag order, parliament, streisand effect, uk
Companies: carter-ruck, trafigura

41 Comments

If you liked this post, you may also be interested in...

Reader Comments

Subscribe: RSS

View by: Time | Thread

Dave W (profile), 13 Oct 2009 @ 4:55am

Other news outlets gagged too?
I guess that other news outlets have been gagged and are keeping quiet. None of the biggies (hello? BBC?) are carrying this story which would normally be right up their left-of-centre street.

From what i see twitter is trending it and spreading it quickly.

A web-led fightback? oh i do hope so....
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
vyvyan, 13 Oct 2009 @ 5:22am

files/reports available on wiki leaks
Minton report: Trafigura toxic dumping along the Ivory Coast broke EU regulations, 14 Sep 2006

http://www.wikileaks.com/wiki/Minton_report:_Trafigura_Toxic_dumping_along_the_Ivory_Coast_b roke_EU_regulations,_14_Sep_2006
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Call me Al, 13 Oct 2009 @ 5:30am

I first saw mention of Trafigura on a friend's facebook status, he was lamenting not having been on Twitter today when the story broke. Since I've done some Googling to work out what is going on. It seems the Guardan and BBC have both had recent reports on Trafigura and their "alleged" dumping of toxic waste on an African city in order to save money. The BBC apparently has another such report due this evening.

The Trafigura legal team has gone after the BBC, Times and Guardian, with the Times apparently backing down. The BBC were pretty robust in their response.

Eitherway this is a clear example of the Streisand effect. Its unlikely I would have noticed this story without their attempt to silence a paper(indeed I didn't see the previous reports from the BBC or Guardian, I read both websites). They've managed to top the Twitter listings and these days that is newsworthy in itself to get it talked about in mainstream papers and websites. So now all these papers that might otherwise be gagged can talk about the Guardian being gagged and allow their own readers to follow the trails to see why.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Enricosuarve, 13 Oct 2009 @ 5:54am

Damn but that was fast
I was halfway writing an email to you informing you of this and then spotted you'd already beat me anyway!

Either way Babs Streisand has struck again as they have recalled the gagging order obviously noting the amount of publicity they were getting, albeit a little late...

http://www.guardian.co.uk/media/2009/oct/13/guardian-gagged-parliamentary-question
http: //www.telegraph.co.uk/news/newstopics/politics/6316512/Libel-firm-Carter-Ruck-and-oil-trader-Trafigu ra-end-attempt-to-gag-press-freedom.html

Chalk one up for the good guys methinks ;0)
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Michael Foord (profile), 13 Oct 2009 @ 5:56am

Libel laws?
The gagging order has just been lifted by the way.

What does this have to do with libel laws? (Absolutely nothing as far as I can tell...)

http://www.guardian.co.uk/media/2009/oct/13/guardian-gagged-parliamentary-question
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
craig: web traffic, 13 Oct 2009 @ 6:24am

Thanks!
I read this on your RSS feed. Thank you for doing your part to keep the voice of free press alive. As you say they cannot sue everybody... there are simply too many of us.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- btr1701 (profile), 13 Oct 2009 @ 7:25am
  
  Re: Thanks!
  > As you say they cannot sue everybody... there
  > are simply too many of us.
  
  That's not even the issue. The issue is jurisdiction (or lack of it). In Britain, the government can gag the media much more freely than in other countries. Here in the US, such a thing would be unheard of and the newspaper would probably defy the gag order just to get the case to court where the government would surely lose.
  
  Before the internet, gagging the UK media was a pretty effective way of shutting down a story in the UK but it's useless now, as this TechDirt story just proved. Sure they can censor the UK papers but when every citizen in Britain can log onto an American site like TechDirt or CNN or MSNBC, none of whom are subject to British law or jurisdiction and therefore don't give a flip about British gag orders, it's a useless tactic that only drives up awareness of that which they're attempting to censor.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Robert Ring (profile), 13 Oct 2009 @ 6:26am

I am prevented from posting a comment containing my thoughts on this matter. I am also prevented from explaining what this matter is or from identifying the source of said prevention. I am legally allowed only to say that there has been a prevention and that it may or may not have involved commenting on a matter.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
John Doe, 13 Oct 2009 @ 6:27am

Coming to a country near you...
Wonder if Obama's whining about Fox News will lead to something similar here?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Enricosuarve, 13 Oct 2009 @ 6:43am
  
  Re: Coming to a country near you...
  I wouldn't worry - I'm not sure this sort of gagging order applies to works of fiction
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Anonymous Coward, 13 Oct 2009 @ 6:47am
  
  Re: Coming to a country near you...
  I wouldn't characterize it as whining. It's simply recognizing that an organization that brands itself as an objective news source is not. Fox is advocacy journalism of the worst kind. At least other media that take a viewpoint admit it. Fox: "You Lie."
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - John Doe, 13 Oct 2009 @ 7:02am
    
    Re: Re: Coming to a country near you...
    Funny how all the anti-Fox people think their favorite news organization is unbiased and saintly. Actually, it isn't funny at all. All news organizations are extremely biased, even when they "try" not to be. What is it with newspapers picking candidates for an election? How can that possibly be viewed as unbiased?
    
    Also, the actual news on Fox News is as unbiased as any other news program. Notice I didn't say it is unbiased, but is "as" unbiased as others. It is the opinion segments the libs mistake for news. Funny they don't seem to make that mistake with CNN or MSNBC whose opinion segments are just as biased but the other way.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Jerry S, 13 Oct 2009 @ 7:03am
    
    Re: Re: Coming to a country near you...
    From what I've seen, Fox's news coverage is very similar to every one else. The commentators tend to be biased against the rest of the media, but the actual journalists and reporters generally report facts (as journalists should). O'Reilly, Hannity and Beck never claim to be journalists, they claim to commentators, and therefore, they are free to express opinion.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - Comboman (profile), 13 Oct 2009 @ 9:31am
      
      Re: Re: Re: Coming to a country near you...
      Unfortunately, the kind of red-neck morons that watch Fox can't tell the difference between journalism and commentary ("Glenn Beck said Obama is Kenyian communist muslim terrorist, so it must be true.")
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
      - Dark Helmet (profile), 13 Oct 2009 @ 10:02am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Coming to a country near you...
        "Unfortunately, the kind of red-neck morons that watch Fox can't tell the difference between journalism and commentary ("Glenn Beck said Obama is Kenyian communist muslim terrorist, so it must be true.")"
        
        And then he....cried...because he *sniff*...just loves *sniff*...his goddam country *sniff*....so MUCH! WWWAAAHHHHH, my country that allows compromise and incorporation of other's beliefs and cultures isn't EXACTLY the way I want it! BWWWWAAAAAHHHHHH!
        
        Glen Beck is an absolute disingenous retard and, next to Murdoch, he is objective numero uno once the Helmety Takeover that has been prophesized begins...
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Anonymous Coward, 13 Oct 2009 @ 11:25am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Coming to a country near you...
        Let me know where to send my campaign check!
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Anonymous Coward, 13 Oct 2009 @ 7:09pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Coming to a country near you...
        You must be some kind of socialist Obama-nut.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Azrael, 14 Oct 2009 @ 12:15am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Coming to a country near you...
        If Obama is a socialist then i'm the pope.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Dark Helmet (profile), 14 Oct 2009 @ 7:19am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Coming to a country near you...
        "You must be some kind of socialist Obama-nut."
        
        Uh, yeah, if you think that then you haven't been paying attention to my comments. I'm certainly no Obama supporter. The nice thing about being an independent is that I get to tell both sides why they're stupid.
        
        Oh, and Glen Beck is still a caricature moron.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Anonymous Coward, 13 Oct 2009 @ 8:17am
  
  Re: Coming to a country near you...
  Can't lead to something similar here. Free press is pretty damn strong on these shores and there has been little indication that Obama is out to suppress anything like rights. Sure he wants to take your money away and subject our grand children to massive bills, but he isn't trampling on the constitution.
  
  Quick response to the Fox News haters. Yea they lie, so do other news medias. I don't watch Fox News cause their extreme right wing take makes me sick to my stomach. By that same token, I don't watch much american news cause their extreme left wing take also gets me sick to my stomach. American TV news SUCKS.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Anonymous Coward, 13 Oct 2009 @ 7:16pm
    
    Re: Re: Coming to a country near you...
    By that same token, I don't watch much american news cause their extreme left wing take also gets me sick to my stomach. American TV news SUCKS.
    
    I don't think you've seen much of the world: there really aren't many leftists in America. We mostly go from moderate right wing to extreme right wing. Of course, the extreme right wingers like to call the moderates "leftists" just because they aren't extreme enough to please them.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Headbhang, 13 Oct 2009 @ 6:43am

Twitter
Ha! It's now even a Twitter trend. Beautiful. Take that, speech-stifling dumbasses!

BTW, any twitters please re-tweet to keep it there.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Ady, 13 Oct 2009 @ 7:02am

I thought situations like this were the reason WikiLeaks was about?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Dark Helmet (profile), 13 Oct 2009 @ 7:02am

Please please please
....keep in mind that it has been common practice for the past seventy years or so for the upper echelon of power folks to "test drive" actions and policies in the UK and France to gauge public reaction.

I like being called a conspiracy nut, because it's funny when you get stories that come out like this, with the UK literally attempting to stifle press speech about an OIL INDUSTRY action. So where's the conspiracy?

Well, The Chairman of the Board for Galena Asset Management, the fund managment subsidiary of Trafigura is none other than Lord Strathclyde, head of the conservative party in the House of Lords.

Sigh...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- John Doe, 13 Oct 2009 @ 7:04am
  
  Re: Please please please
  It isn't paranoia if they are really out to get you.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Dez, 13 Oct 2009 @ 7:03am

According to the BBC this morning
The injunction has been lifted and they are allowed to report on this.

They were saying that the courts in the UK are the worst in regards to supporting Free Speech. They frequently give out these injunctions in which the people being injuncted cannot even mention this fact. Very Orwellian if you ask me.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Ben (profile), 13 Oct 2009 @ 7:14am

You can always rely on Stephen Fry
Who's also tweeting about this.

http://twitter.com/#search?q=%23trafigura
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Ben (profile), 13 Oct 2009 @ 7:22am

It's over... I think
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/politics/8304483.stm
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Bloody Peasant, 13 Oct 2009 @ 7:58am

The system
Come and see violence inherent in the system.

BLOODY PEASANT!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 13 Oct 2009 @ 8:29am

In Soviet Britain...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
ethorad, 13 Oct 2009 @ 8:50am

ironic
I find it rather amusing that a question about protecting press freedom led to at least one news outlet being gagged ...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Tosin Aro, 13 Oct 2009 @ 8:57am

Politics and Media
Good to hear now that the Guardian is able to report on the story now.38 Degrees are currently running a campaign on this. Take action now by emailing your MP and asking them to take a stand to stop this happening again in the future. Take action now, it only takes 2 mins. Go to:

http://www.38degrees.org.uk/stop-the-gag
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
harbingerofdoom (profile), 13 Oct 2009 @ 9:21am

i say this as an evil conservative/capitalist pig:

never ever ever hide the bad stuff. it will always come back to haunt you in the end.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
paul canning, 13 Oct 2009 @ 9:29am

We won
This has been defeated by the Twittosphere. See http://onlinejournalismblog.com/2009/10/13/trafigura-guardian-gagging-order-parliament/
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Poster, 13 Oct 2009 @ 1:57pm

And the UK thinks their libel laws DON'T need to be reworked.

Bunch of jackasses.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
caz, 13 Oct 2009 @ 3:09pm

Carter-Ruck and Schillings
Carter-Ruck are not dissimilar to Schillings

In fact, at least three lawyers at Carter-Ruck have come from Schillings, Hanna Basha, Felicity Robinson and Michelle Riondel.

Schillings have attempted to effect a gag order on various websites on the internet to prevent the public from knowing that that there is a clear (electronic) connection between Ark Academies and the Dutroux scandal (about the sexual abuse, torture and murder of children scandal in Belgium in the late 1990's).

Ark Academies sponsor schools in the UK.

First Schillings letter:
http://wikileaks.org/wiki/Schillings_legal_demands_to_EUTruth.Org_over_EIM_Chair_Arpad_Buss on

Censored video:
http://wikileaks.org/wiki/EIMConsult_censored_video

Refutation:
http://wikileaks.org/wiki/Talk :EIMConsult_censored_video

Second Schillings letter:
http://wikileaks.org/wiki/Schillings_legal_threat_re_Arpad_Busson%2C_EIM_Group_and_ARK_Scho ols_to_911forum.org.uk_hoster%2C_16_Dec_2008

Refutation:
http://wikileaks.org/wiki/Talk:Schillings_legal_threat_re_Arpad_Busson,_EIM_Group_a nd_ARK_Schools_to_911forum.org.uk_hoster,_16_Dec_2008#ARK.2C_Ron_Beller.2C_and_subprime_mortgages

Ark's eugenics programme now in place in UK schools:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RBxQpft5F_k
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 13 Oct 2009 @ 7:23pm

John 8:32
A quote I like, as I posted under the Wikileaks story also:

You will know the truth, and the truth will make you free.
-- John 8:32
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 13 Oct 2009 @ 11:06pm

"This certainly implies that The Guardian has been barred due to this original story of how British oil trader Trafigura was offering to pay "historic damages" to 31,000 people injured in the dumping of toxic waste in Africa. "

My guess is that the rich and the powerful have long been benefiting at the expense of the poor and the powerless by doing this sort of thing, censoring it from the public, and then blaming the alleged failures of the poor and the powerless on their own actions and their refusal to do everything that "industrialized" nations tell them to despite the fact that the only reason the rich and the powerful prosper is because they have been doing so at the expense of the poor and the powerless.

Of course, now thanks to the Internet, the truth is more widespread but the one thing that scares me is that it seems people on this blog take this spread of information for granted. You seem to yell "victory" as if this will never go away. Trust me, there are people working very hard to restrict the free flow of information and if we take such free flow for granted it will be controlled by evil people. Don't take it for granted, any government officials who even attempted to censor this information should lose their jobs. We should not tolerate any attempts whatsoever at censoring information without consequence to those trying to censor it because if these people aren't punished they have little to lose by searching for ways and trying new things to censor information.

Furthermore, we should be proactive in taking back the FCC/corporate controlled airwaves and also giving anyone permission to either build new cable infrastructure or to use the existing cable/telco infrastructure to compete with the status quo and offer Internet service and cable television with a wider variety of channels.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
The Idiot, 14 Oct 2009 @ 12:57am

The BBC were not allowed to comment on it until this morning; however, Sky News was.

Does this mean that we can sue Paul Farrel for defamation and high treason (last time I checked, stifling free speech without good cause was a treasonous act under that self-same Bill of Rights)?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Guardian Sucks, 11 Dec 2009 @ 5:41pm

Good. The Guardian censored my comments on just who is funding this phony enviro-terrorist movement and funding these NAZI youth.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
ouro-wetchire issaka, 28 May 2010 @ 3:20am

hello
I am a student at university of lome(togo).
[ link to this | view in chronology ]