UK Continues To Censor The Press: Orders Wall Street Journal To Pull Details From Already Published Story

from the no-freedom-of-the-press dept

Fri, Oct 18th 2013 12:56pm — Mike Masnick

The UK's issue broad injunctions that try to silence the press from naming names of people accused of crimes. Given that, a court apparently ordered the Wall Street Journal to remove the names of bankers the WSJ had noted were expected to be named as being involved in the criminal manipulation of the LIBOR rate:

A British judge ordered the Journal and David Enrich, the newspaper's European banking editor, to comply with a request by the U.K.'s Serious Fraud Office prohibiting the newspaper from publishing names of individuals not yet made public in the government's ongoing investigation into alleged manipulation of the London interbank offered rate, or Libor.

The order, which applies to publication in England and Wales, also demanded that the Journal remove "any existing Internet publication" divulging the details. It threatened Mr. Enrich and "any third party" with penalties including a fine, imprisonment and asset seizure.

Except, as the Journal notes, it had already published the story out on the wire, and while it took down its own web story, and is protesting the injunction, it's not at all difficult to find other stories that published the names:

In Friday’s U.S. edition of the newspaper, 11 names were printed, including former UBS AG (NYSE:UBS) and Citigroup Inc. (NYSE:C) trader Tom Hayes; his former boss at UBS, Michael Pieri; and two former brokers at R.P. Martin Holdings Ltd., Terry Farr and James Gilmour.

And, of course, anyone who got the print version, which had already gone to press, could see the names as well:

And, in the end, all this has really done is draw that much more attention to the names.

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: censorship, freedom of the press, injunctions, libor, press, super injunctions, uk, wall street journal
Companies: dow jones

28 Comments

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

Reader Comments

Subscribe: RSS

View by: Time | Thread

Anonymous Coward, 18 Oct 2013 @ 1:04pm

seems like the surveillance isn't the only thing that the UK is doing to be on par with the USA. they're going down the 'i can be just as stupid over the press' route as well, with judges acting either just as naive or clueless as their USA counterparts
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Nastybutler77 (profile), 18 Oct 2013 @ 1:13pm

It would have made more sense for the judge to order everyone in the UK to close their eyes, put their fingers in their ears and say "la la la" repeatedly.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Daniel, 18 Oct 2013 @ 1:14pm

Censoring the Press
This may be a harbringer of future press coverage in the USA. The Obama administration is the most press oppressive in history.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Niall (profile), 22 Oct 2013 @ 5:29am
  
  Re: Censoring the Press
  Yes, that's why hostile sites like Faux, Free Republic and Breitbart all got shut down so fast.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 18 Oct 2013 @ 1:15pm

In Friday�s U.S. edition of the newspaper, 11 names were printed, including former UBS AG (NYSE:UBS) and Citigroup Inc. (NYSE:C) trader Tom Hayes; his former boss at UBS, Michael Pieri; and two former brokers at R.P. Martin Holdings Ltd., Terry Farr and James Gilmour.

Steissand Effect engaged.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Dan, 18 Oct 2013 @ 1:15pm

Hey England:

Tom Hayes, Paul Glands, Terry Farr, James Gilmour, Michael Pieri, Mirhat Alykulov, Christopher Cecere, Luke Madsen, Mark Jones, Noel Gryan.

Put that in your teakettle and smoke it.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Anonymous Coward, 18 Oct 2013 @ 1:15pm
  
  Re:
  Tom Hayes, Paul Glands, Terry Farr, James Gilmour, Michael Pieri, Mirhat Alykulov, Christopher Cecere, Luke Madsen, Mark Jones, Noel Gryan.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
MikeC, 18 Oct 2013 @ 1:16pm

Court Stupid - WSJ borderline criminal ....
I see a problem with the order, they are shutting the barn door after the horses were let out by the "dickheads at the WSJ" who published a story saying folks might be named. Now that they decided to just smear people on rumor and innuendo ... the court order is stupid, but the WSJ is criminal. If the names in question had been charged, no problem but that they might be charged is just rumor mongering - then again it's the WSJ a tome basically built on rumor mongering!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Anonymous Coward, 18 Oct 2013 @ 2:35pm
  
  Re: Court Stupid - WSJ borderline criminal ....
  Agreed, It is bad form from press to roll named individuals in tar and feather with only rumours of a possible future trial to show for. It is very problematic for the innocent people who will inevitably be targeted! While the innocents will be able to sue the press on defamation, they will be pretty much blackballed by everyone who read the original story and even after winning such trials the doubt will still stick to them.
  
  The problem here is that the court orders extend also include censorship instead of only a warning about future stories.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 18 Oct 2013 @ 1:28pm

if i had caused some sort of financial problem, like robbing a bank, my name would be plastered over every front page possible. what gives these people the right to anonymity? they did far more damage than i could ever have done!
then to threaten with prison etc, has this UK judge actually got a full ticket? they're acting as stupid as those in the USA!!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Uriel-238 (profile), 18 Oct 2013 @ 1:28pm

UK gone mad.
What in Hell is going on over there? We're supposed to be the crazy ones!

Stop it, you!

Sincerest regards,

The United States of America.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Anonymous Coward, 19 Oct 2013 @ 1:38am
  
  Re: UK gone mad.
  Oh, this is nothing. If you angle things the american way, a lot of things are worse in Europe. UK has hit a spell of exceptionally bad ideas because Cameron is desperate to get back votes from a swell of flourishing right-wing parties.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Pragmatic, 21 Oct 2013 @ 5:29am
    
    Re: Re: UK gone mad.
    Because desperate, poor, frightened people swing right when they appear to offer leadership and a way out of the crisis.
    
    Please bear in mind that much of the crisis was manufactured by the far right by minimizing regulation of Wall St. and the banks in the first place and knocking holes you could drive a Hummer through in the Constitution.
    
    Meanwhile, the UK Conservative Party appears to be turning into the US Republican Party (Tea Party version), with predictable results.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
jameshogg (profile), 18 Oct 2013 @ 1:30pm

Here in the U.K., we have just seen police officers lie about "pleb" comments while the IPCC does hardly anything to chase it up.

But yet people are still deluded into thinking that similar independent regulation set up with the press will stop phone hacking... phone hacking that the police were complicit in. There is a reason why not as much fury is aimed at the police in relation to this issue: people do not want to admit the police have an independent body that keeps them "accountable". Need I even mention Hillsborough?

And that is on top of the even more insane delusion that it will stop tabloid readers from engaging in their sadomasochistic drivel.

You should have seen the way in which the Guardian's commenters were defending the royal charter in the articles (royal charter... ROYAL?! Fucking monarchy strikes again!)... a charter that would have put more pressure on the paper to be silent about Snowden's leaks on top of what they did to David Miranda. Their attitude is disgraceful.

I really do wish our society would take the values of the First Amendment as seriously as you guys in the U.S. do, and actually fucking get a Constitution.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- art guerrilla (profile), 19 Oct 2013 @ 1:21am
  
  Re:
  getting a constitution is no big deal, KEEPING a constitution is the tricky part...
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 18 Oct 2013 @ 1:46pm

And, of course, anyone who got the print version, which had already gone to press, could see the names as well
I'm surprised there aren't policemen with bottles of white-out going door to door blotting out the names.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Anonymous Coward, 20 Oct 2013 @ 8:38am
  
  Re:
  More Black Ink Stat [Redacted]
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 18 Oct 2013 @ 1:51pm

Welcome the new dictators.
Same as the last dictators.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 18 Oct 2013 @ 3:00pm

All law enforcement and judicial organizations on this planet are going completely insane. Must be some kind of biological warfare agent released on the unsuspecting world.
.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 18 Oct 2013 @ 3:19pm

First Amendment
No, publication of names of suspects is proper *if* the article spells out that the individuals are only suspects.

The public has a right to know the information.
The presumption of innocence only applies to government action -- not to public discussion in newspapers.

In other words, it sucks to be a suspect, but there is no right to avoid publicity.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
roarshock44, 18 Oct 2013 @ 3:36pm

wait a minute.

london interbank offered rate . . . LIBOR.

do they really need that B?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- John Fenderson (profile), 18 Oct 2013 @ 3:39pm
  
  Re:
  Without that "B" it sounds too much like "liar".
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Anon-Y-Mouse, 19 Oct 2013 @ 2:24pm
    
    Re: Re:
    Which is so prophetically accurate...
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 18 Oct 2013 @ 4:53pm

Hmmm, why is it not tagged "Streisand effect"?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Postulator (profile), 18 Oct 2013 @ 7:04pm

So Techdirt is now preparing itself for an appearance before a British magistrate, having published these names while aware that they were the subject of a restraining order?

Presumably Techdirt's British representative, Emma Peel, will front court.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- G Thompson (profile), 18 Oct 2013 @ 9:01pm
  
  Re:
  I think the SAS should initiate a mission to bring Mike to UK 'justice'...an appearance in front of the Old Bailey with a few month stint in the Tower would fix him don't ya think..
  
  ;)
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Bergman (profile), 19 Oct 2013 @ 3:13am

Next up in the news...
...the WSJ is ordered by the UK courts to destroy random keyboards, mice, monitors and memory modules for no reason at all.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Niall (profile), 22 Oct 2013 @ 5:31am

Only in England and Wales
So it doesn't even count in Scotland and Ireland. Good luck stopping that story then!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]