Chilling Effects: UK Police Admit To Investigating Journalists For Covering Snowden Leaks
from the freedom-of-the-press? dept
Remember back when UK law enforcement detained David Miranda while he passing through Heathrow airport for nine hours, under an anti-terrorism law, claiming that journalism could be terrorism? Apparently, UK law enforcement is really doubling down on that claim, with the new admission that there is an ongoing and open criminal investigation into the reporters who have published Snowden documents.As you recall, the first such documents were obtained and published by Glenn Greenwald, an American living in Brazil but working for the UK's Guardian newspaper. There had been a number of bizarre reports about just how far UK law enforcement wanted to go to intimidate journalists from reporting on such leaks in the future -- even forcing the Guardian to physically destroy a laptop that had the Snowden documents for no good reason other than security theater.
But that kind of intimidation has been taken up a notch. Greenwald's new publication, the Intercept, has been engaged in an ongoing Freedom of Information battle with the Metropolitan Police Service in the UK to find out if that organization is investigating journalists, and the police have finally confirmed that they are, in fact, investigating journalists, though it only does so obliquely, but "confirming" that "it continues to conduct an investigation into the events as described above" (with the "above" being the details laid out in the Freedom of Information request).
Of course, it doesn't appear that the reporters actually did anything wrong, and thus it seems fairly clear that the entire reason for the investigation is to create chilling effects for journalists who might publish such stories in the future and to harass those who published them in the past. The current UK government's continued move to use Orwell's 1984 as a guidebook, rather than a warning sign, is really reaching ridiculous levels.
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: ed snowden, glenn greenwald, investigation, journalism, metropolitan police, uk
Reader Comments
Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
Subversive acts
In wartime, telling the truth becomes a subversive act.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Subversive acts
Mr. UK: Who ya got?
UK policy has become an inversion of an old Brando movie.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Subversive acts
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Subversive acts
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
is really reaching ridiculous levels...
We actually are already past ridiculous levels.
We are now just sitting around figuring out how long 'We The People' will tolerate it before something is done.
'We The People' have proven to have a shockingly short memory span and a strong tolerance for political & legal mischief or just flat out treason as well.
We reap what we sow! UK is the same as any other nation in that respect.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
This would never happen in America, because....
- U.S. District Judge Murray Gurfein, 1971, regarding the Pentagon Papers
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: This would never happen in America, because....
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: This would never happen in America, because....
Biographical Directory of Federal Judges
Gurfein, Murray Irwin
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: This would never happen in America, because....
Daniel Ellsberg was charged in 1971 under the Espionage Act as well as for theft and conspiracy for copying the Pentagon Papers. The trial was dismissed in 1973 after evidence of government misconduct against him, including illegal wiretapping, was introduced in court.
For the two years he was under indictment, he was free to speak to the media and at rallies and public lectures.
Today, the government actions that got the case thrown out of court are legal. Today, Snowden would not be allowed out on bail. Instead, he would be in a prison cell, incommunicado, in total isolation conditions.
Yes, my post was supposed to be satire. Bitter, bitter satire.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: This would never happen in America, because....
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
Seeing secret documents is not a crime as far as I know. If, in its infinite wisdom, the gov't insists it needs secrecy to carry out its assigned duties, it's up to the gov't to secure access to those secrets. "They" (journalists) are private citizens, unbeholden to the gov't to carry on such secrecy for them. Their job may be at odds with the wishes of the gov't, but we decided a long time ago that the wishes of the gov't don't trump the needs of a free society nor its individual members of it.
If the gov't doesn't like this, we can renegotiate the deal, which will involve a lot of messy things they will prefer to see even less than their secrets getting out, such as them hanging from meathooks in the town square. That's not a threat; just an observation based on historical events. They need to decide how far they want to push and how much it's worth to get what they want.
Whose gov't are they?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Once upon a time
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Once upon a time
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Once upon a time
Or rather is happening.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Once upon a time
They needed to fall back on fascism to end the War On Drugs. Nothing else was working, and they were (and still are) losing it. It was serendipitous for them that the War On Terror happened to justify their new choice of methods.
Long term, they still won't win, and it'll be very messy for everyone including themselves until they recognize this. Prohibition doesn't work! We all know this.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Once upon a time
Some might say it was really good planning.
Unless of course, they're among the crowd that believes that Tycoon and Drug Lord Billionaires, like Billionaire and Millionaire Politicians and Lawyers, are utterly incompetent idiots who could never in a million years plan and execute anything remotely like a conspiracy to fool the public for fun and profit, successfully, even with the availability of the nearly unlimited wealth of the entire tax-payer windfall of the USA, Great Britain, Canada, New Zealand and Australia at their disposal.
Nope. Musta bin serendipity.... :)
---
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Once upon a time
Some might say that they needed to create The War on Drugs to allow them to end democracy and initiate fascism in its place... you know, that old New World Order thing that totally depends on all governments of the world obeying a single leader group...
"All your law are belong to us."
But then we already covered why that simply cannot be in the last post - right. :)
---
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Who better to investigate?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Both also ignore the ineffectiveness of these approaches and the undesireable side-effects, but that is politics.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]