[kenberg]

Something comes to mind, tell me if this is so. I seem to recall U.S. reporters having trouble with U.K. libel laws and/or maybe the secrecy laws. Or maybe it was authors of books. I don't think I am fantasizing about this but I don't recall the details. No one was extradited, jailed or shot, but there may have been some financial problems. Anyone have any recall of this?

I seriously doubt that any government anywhere would be easy about someone publishing the previously unknown contents of their diplomatic cables. Exactly what they would do or have done I don't know.

For example, I pulled this from the Wikipedia about the U.K official secrets act (1989) as to what is forbidden:

Quote

Section 5: further disclosure or publication of information obtained in contravention of other sections of the act. It allows, for example, the prosecution of newspapers or journalists who publish secret information leaked to them by a crown servant in contravention of section 3. This section applies to everyone, regardless of whether they are a government employee, or whether they have signed the act.

I don't know if they regard this as applicable to someone who is not a British subject. It doesn't say one way or the other.

[Winstonm]

The question to me is what price does society pay for government's secrecy and is that price worth it?

[blackshoe]

Apples and oranges.

[Winstonm]

blackshoe, on 2011-January-21, 19:11, said:

Apples and oranges.

Only if you consider "government" to be an apple and "of the people, by the people, and for the people" to be an orange.

[blackshoe]

All governments are "of the people". Some governments are not "for the people", and some are not "by the people". So yeah, "of the people, by the people and for the people" is not an apple, however much we might like it to be.

[kenberg]

For as long as there are adversarial relationships there will be secrets.

[Winstonm]

blackshoe, on 2011-January-21, 21:50, said:

All governments are "of the people". Some governments are not "for the people", and some are not "by the people". So yeah, "of the people, by the people and for the people" is not an apple, however much we might like it to be.

I would say it more accurate that some governments are "of the people" and some governments are "of some people" and some governments are "of a few select people".

Where the U.S. falls in these groupings is not as clear-cut as it once was considered to be.

[Winstonm]

Quote

NBC News has been told by US military officials that the investigation into Pfc. Bradley Manning found absolutely no evidence that he ever had contact with Assange, let alone that he and Assange directly conspired with one another.

Well, dang, another conspiracy theory down the drain...

[PassedOut]

Interesting inside account by Bill Keller about how the NYT received and processed the material from Wikileaks: Dealing With Julian Assange and the Secrets He Spilled

Quote

The adventure that ensued over the next six months combined the cloak-and-dagger intrigue of handling a vast secret archive with the more mundane feat of sorting, searching and understanding a mountain of data. As if that were not complicated enough, the project also entailed a source who was elusive, manipulative and volatile (and ultimately openly hostile to The Times and The Guardian); an international cast of journalists; company lawyers committed to keeping us within the bounds of the law; and an array of government officials who sometimes seemed as if they couldn’t decide whether they wanted to engage us or arrest us.

Original portraits of Assange by Jenny Morgan and Daniel Gordon too.

[kenberg]

In the Times Mag article, on the advertising column at the side it asks the question

Do you know the secret to the perfect swing?
Watch now.
Click here.

Finally, some useful secret information is being disclosed!

[y66]

I enjoyed that Bill Keller story. Here's one of the parts I found esp. interesting:

The tension between a newspaper’s obligation to inform and the government’s responsibility to protect is hardly new. At least until this year, nothing The Times did on my watch caused nearly so much agitation as two articles we published about tactics employed by the Bush administration after the attacks of Sept. 11, 2001. The first, which was published in 2005 and won a Pulitzer Prize, revealed that the National Security Agency was eavesdropping on domestic phone conversations and e-mail without the legal courtesy of a warrant. The other, published in 2006, described a vast Treasury Department program to screen international banking records.

I have vivid memories of sitting in the Oval Office as President George W. Bush tried to persuade me and the paper’s publisher to withhold the eavesdropping story, saying that if we published it, we should share the blame for the next terrorist attack. We were unconvinced by his argument and published the story, and the reaction from the government — and conservative commentators in particular — was vociferous.

This time around, the Obama administration’s reaction was different. It was, for the most part, sober and professional. The Obama White House, while strongly condemning WikiLeaks for making the documents public, did not seek an injunction to halt publication. There was no Oval Office lecture. On the contrary, in our discussions before publication of our articles, White House officials, while challenging some of the conclusions we drew from the material, thanked us for handling the documents with care. The secretaries of state and defense and the attorney general resisted the opportunity for a crowd-pleasing orgy of press bashing. There has been no serious official talk — unless you count an ambiguous hint by Senator Joseph Lieberman — of pursuing news organizations in the courts. Though the release of these documents was certainly embarrassing, the relevant government agencies actually engaged with us in an attempt to prevent the release of material genuinely damaging to innocent individuals or to the national interest.

[phil_20686]

kenberg, on 2011-January-21, 14:27, said:

Something comes to mind, tell me if this is so. I seem to recall U.S. reporters having trouble with U.K. libel laws and/or maybe the secrecy laws. Or maybe it was authors of books. I don't think I am fantasizing about this but I don't recall the details. No one was extradited, jailed or shot, but there may have been some financial problems. Anyone have any recall of this?

U.k. libel laws apply if your have suffered damage to your reputation *in britian*. So you can be subject to libel in a British court if you publish in Britian, even if you are not resident in Britian. Of course, these laws were written before the internet, and now pretty much anything every published is available to British citizens. They are reviewing it now, and, imo, will almost certainly inclide a clause along the lines of if you are a foreign citizen accused of libel you must have caused significant commercial (i.e. loss of *british* revenue) to the person you are accused of libelling. That would hopefully stop some of the absurd elements like US chiro practers suing the AMA in a british court for saying that the thing with needles (forget the name) doesn't work. (I seem to recall there was some such case. ALso a south African journalist getting sued for something similar about new age medicine.

Of course, even in its current fairly absurd wording the principle is that the offence occured in britian, or to a british citizen. US will doubtless argue that wikileaks caused damage to American citizens etc etc.

[PassedOut]

phil_20686, on 2011-February-01, 08:57, said:

Of course, even in its current fairly absurd wording the principle is that the offence occured in britian, or to a british citizen. US will doubtless argue that wikileaks caused damage to American citizens etc etc.

Britian?

[blackshoe]

Britian is over there near England someplace.

Acupuncture.

[Winstonm]

PassedOut, on 2011-February-01, 09:21, said:

Britian?

I think Britian refers to the Christian areas of England as opposed to the Musland areas of Britain.

[PassedOut]

Winstonm, on 2011-February-01, 14:38, said:

I think Britian refers to the Christian areas of England as opposed to the Musland areas of Britain.

Ah so. Would it be short for Graet Britian?

[Winstonm]

PassedOut, on 2011-February-01, 18:57, said:

Ah so. Would it be short for Graet Britian?

Right - just like the pearly graets.

[phil_20686]

In punishment for pointing out my terrible spelling, I shall subject you to a lecture on the usage of the various terms.


Britain = England, Wales and Scotland (I.e. The geographically distinct main Island).
Great Britain includes the above and all non self-governing islands. (e.g. Hebrides, Orkney etc).
The United Kingdom includes all of the above and Northern Island.
The British Isles means the combination of all of the above and also the Republic of Ireland.
Confusingly, the British Islands means the UK and The channel Islands and the Isle of Man but not the Republic of Ireland.

Bet you are all glad you didn't have to learn Geography in the UK eh?

Also strictly speaking my comment above referred to the legal system of England and Wales, not Scotland or NI, which have their own distinct legal systems.

Finally if you were wondering what kind of slightly anal-retentive person would actually know these things as opposed to simply using them interchangeably like everyone else; then I can only tell you that my knowledge is vast .

[Winstonm]

phil_20686, on 2011-February-02, 16:38, said:

In punishment for pointing out my terrible spelling, I shall subject you to a lecture on the usage of the various terms.


Britain = England, Wales and Scotland (I.e. The geographically distinct main Island).
Great Britain includes the above and all non self-governing islands. (e.g. Hebrides, Orkney etc).
The United Kingdom includes all of the above and Northern Island.
The British Isles means the combination of all of the above and also the Republic of Ireland.
Confusingly, the British Islands means the UK and The channel Islands and the Isle of Man but not the Republic of Ireland.

Bet you are all glad you didn't have to learn Geography in the UK eh?

Also strictly speaking my comment above referred to the legal system of England and Wales, not Scotland or NI, which have their own distinct legal systems.

Finally if you were wondering what kind of slightly anal-retentive person would actually know these things as opposed to simply using them interchangeably like everyone else; then I can only tell you that my knowledge is vast .

I thought Anal-Retentive was in Wales