Will State Department Condemn The UK For Using Terror Laws To Stifle Journalism?

from the it's-done-so-with-others dept

Mon, Nov 4th 2013 3:02pm — Mike Masnick

We wrote earlier about the incredible situation in the UK, in which the government there is making the ridiculous argument that it was appropriate to detain Glenn Greenwald's partner David Miranda at Heathrow under an anti-terrorism law because his journalistic activities qualify as terrorism because they might "influence a government." It seems fairly obvious to most rational observers, that the UK is redefining anti-terrorism laws to stifle journalism it doesn't like.

Trevor Timm, over at the Freedom of the Press Foundation wonders if the US State Department will condemn the UK for this activity, noting a long history of the State Department condemning countries who use anti-terror laws to stifle journalism.

For example, in January 2012, in response to Ethiopia jailing award-winning journalist Eskinder Nega, the State Department expressed “concern that the application of anti-terrorism laws can sometimes undermine freedom of expression and independent media.” Again in June State Department released a statement saying the US “The Ethiopian government has used the Anti-Terrorism Proclamation to jail journalists and opposition party members for peacefully exercising their freedoms of expression and association.”

The 2012 State Department human rights report on Turkey criticizes the country for imprisoning “scores of journalists…most charged under antiterror laws or for connections to an illegal organization.”

In April 2013, the State Department cited Burundi for imprisoning radio journalist Hassan Ruvakuki and three of his colleagues for “acts of terrorism.”

Just last month, in response to respected Moroccan journalist Ali Anouzla being arrested under an anti-terror law for linking to a Youtube video, the State Department said, “We are concerned with the government of Morocco’s decision to charge Mr. Anouzla. We support freedom of expression and of the press, as we say all the time, universal rights that are an indispensable part of any society.”

So now when a close ally is doing exactly the same thing -- but it's in an effort to stifle journalism the US probably doesn't much like either -- will the State Department react the same way? A reporter for The Guardian, Dan Roberts, apparently asked the White House that question, and White House spokesperson Jay Carney gave one of those "I'll have to get back to you" kind of answers, which suggests no intention of actually answering the question. Hopefully Roberts and other reporters will continue asking the question until an actual answer is given.

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: david miranda, schedule 7, state department, terrorism, uk

13 Comments

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

Reader Comments

Subscribe: RSS

View by: Time | Thread

That One Guy (profile), 4 Nov 2013 @ 3:04pm

Magic 8-ball says 'Not a chance'
Given the leaks cover both British and US spying, and the NSA and it's defenders have done everything they can to destroy the credibility of Snowden and any other group/person involved with the leaks, up to and including accusation or implications that they are terrorists for their actions, I'd say the State Department is likely to stay completely silent on this one.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 4 Nov 2013 @ 3:06pm

Will State Department Condemn The UK For Using Terror Laws To Stifle Journalism?
Will State Department Condemn The UK For Using Terror Laws To Stifle Journalism?

No.

Next question, please!
[ link to this | view in thread ]
This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it

out_of_the_blue, 4 Nov 2013 @ 3:18pm

Disambiguation needed:
"but it's in an effort to stifle journalism the US probably doesn't much like either" -- Can be read as either the "effort to stifle journalism", or the journalism itself, which is what I assume you meant to convey.
The freedoms you take for granted today were death penalty treason in 1776. Don't let the Inherited Rich restore feudalism. Pull them down with high taxes on unearned income -- and ZERO taxes on wages, they HATE that!

11:17:37[m-290-1]
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 4 Nov 2013 @ 3:26pm

No way they bathe in Hypocrisy and corruption. It sustains them..
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 4 Nov 2013 @ 3:31pm

my brain hurts.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
br3n (profile), 4 Nov 2013 @ 4:01pm

freed of press?
should greenwald be even more wary of even brazilian government? we dont know how far the usa might go to get their way to stop the leaks coming out?
br3n
[ link to this | view in thread ]
wto605 (profile), 4 Nov 2013 @ 4:14pm

I wish!
It could go something like this:

"On 9/11/01 19 terrorists killed 2,977 people in an unprecedented attack on the US. On 7/7/05 4 terrorists killed 52 people in the first deadly attack on the UK since the Belfast Agreement. To use this label for purpose of persecuting the partner of a journalist is disrespectful to the memory of no fewer than 3,000 people."
[ link to this | view in thread ]
kenichi tanaka (profile), 4 Nov 2013 @ 4:27pm

The state department won't condemn the U.K. because that's what the Obama Administration has been doing/trying to do to journalists. After all, they're already doing that whistleblowers.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 4 Nov 2013 @ 9:46pm

Re: Disambiguation needed:
So you want to tax the poor? Unearned Income is disability benefits, welfare and retirement income.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Chris in Utah (profile), 5 Nov 2013 @ 4:25am

Hmm... Anybody seen Adam Kokesh lately.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Not an Electronic Rodent (profile), 5 Nov 2013 @ 4:50am

Yeah, right!
Trevor Timm, over at the Freedom of the Press Foundation wonders if the US State Department will condemn the UK for this activity, noting a long history of the State Department condemning countries who use anti-terror laws to stifle journalism and haven't been giving the US all the illegally obtained intelligence they are using the terror laws to cover up.
...thought I should complete the sentence...
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 5 Nov 2013 @ 7:13am

Sovereignty
Let's not forget about 'sovereignty' people. A nation has to have the power and authority to protect its national security interest, no matter what it may look like on the surface. That may be the very reason most of us can sit securely in our office chairs and blog about all the shit that matters to us most.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Ninja (profile), 5 Nov 2013 @ 7:49am

Not if they can get away with the hypocrisy ;)
[ link to this | view in thread ]