Slashdot Mirror
Australian Police Chief Seeks Terror Reporting Ban
DJMajah writes "News.com.au reports that Australian Federal Police chief Mick Keelty has called for a media blackout on reporting of terrorism investigations and cases before trial in a speech to the Sydney Institute last night. Although he doesn't believe public institutions should be immune from public accountability, he goes on to say that public discussion should be delayed until information is made available by the courts or legal proceedings are complete. This all comes after last year's widely reported case of Dr. Mohammed Haneef who was detained then later deported from Australia on evidence described as weak — and seen by some, including Haneef, as a conspiracy."
Those poor Australian police. All that open, free society stuff is just so darned inconvenient when you want to make sure some guy's enjoying the attentions of an Egyptian torturer before news of his arrest is published.
If I was Osama, I'd be laughing myself sick watching these clowns destroy that nasty, evil free society I hate so much. I couldn't do a better job with another hundred planes.
I've calculated my velocity with such exquisite precision that I have no idea where I am.
Yes, the current government merely wants to set up a list of forbidden sites that you have to opt into to view.
Sorry, but these pack of freedom-hating political hacks ain't that much different than Howard's bunch of freedom-hating political hacks.
The world's burning. Moped Jesus spotted on I50. Details at 11.
He's calling for an end to criticism of government institutions, specifically himself. This is particularly inappropriate given his record of incompetence and false charges against Mohammed Haneef.
Wouldn't we all like to be protected from criticism of ourselves and our incompetence.
Kelty's just a bit of a whiner, really. He's consistantly blamed everyone else for the repeated federal police screw ups, and his latest target is the media. I'm not surprised that the current government isn't taking him to seriously, especially considering how keen they are to distance themselves from the corrupt practices of the previous government.
The only positive out of the actions of the previous government and the AFP is that they were so transparently corrupt and incompetent that our judiciary could prevent us from going down the path of breaking international law to the extent that the current US administration has. If there had been a media blackout, or "editors club" as proposed, the previous government wouldn't have appeared so twisted and the new government wouldn't have got elected. They know it. Mick really should wait until closer to a second term election when the current government has a few dirty secrets to hide before trying to float an idea like this.
Nothing to see here. Nothing's been sensored, there actually is nothing to see beyond a sad old whiner pointing the finger yet again.
I don't therefore I'm not.
The new mouthpiece has smaller eyebrows and a better hairdo. Other than that it's business as usual.
All news is created these days.
Seriously, very little reporting goes on. This is *especially* true at local levels. The national news agencies feed "news" down to local affiliates to push one position or another. Why would they do this? Major news media are not independent and objective. They are driven by profit and the wrong news hurts profits.
How to Download YouTube Videos
They've only been in for two months. The other side had over a decade. Once they're warmed up, we'll see the level of stupidity they exhibit. Sense of perspective, indeed.
Some of the evidence that the Federal Police were trying to have accepted was found by the press to be wrong, and had to be retracted. From that point the case started to collapse.
If it hadn't been for the inconvenient press, it is quite likely that Hanif would have been convicted.
It is this sort of thing that Keelty is trying to forestall.
The press are just so damned annoying when you are trying to fit somebody up...
This is basically a last ditch attempt by the police to try and get the cushy situation their compatriots have in the US where all it takes is a gut feeling and cries of national security to toss someone in Guantanamo Bay. The judges aren't letting them do that here, and the public is getting royally pissed off(the Haneef and APEC failures were a part, if only a small part, of getting the previous government kicked out of office).
Even if our FOI laws aren't the greatest they're not actually going to censor this sort of thing.
It's important to understand who this address was delivered to, The Sydney Institute. They like to pretend they're a neutral think-tank but in reality are firmly alligned to the right wing on most, if not all issues.
It shits me because they don't want to be subject to public scrutiny - no matter how much they say that they are all of that.
As others have said it can take from months to years before a case is decided. In that time the media will have moved onto other things and the general public will be none-the-wiser about some insignificant person who was arrested and dropped out of society some time ago.
Most of the "terrorism" arrests that you hear about in the news are bogus. It's usually the authorities have decided they want to have a poke about in a person's life for some other reason. Find some flimsy link to terrorism (he knew a guy who once called a guy who once shared a public bus with a suspected terrorist) and arrest him, detain him for long enough to snoop through his house and generally find out all there is to know.
When he gets out a week or so later (if they really do find nothing they care about) they put a media block in place to prevent the public finding out. It doesn't matter that the guy's been gagged and can't even tell his (now) ex employer why he's a week late for work. If they find something they keep up the terrorist guise and charge him with other things as well.
Ok, so that was a hypothetical, but it's scary either way.
Fuck this proposal I tell you.
I drink to make other people interesting!
Yah, proven stupidity has limits, potential stupidity is boundless. At least until the wave function collapses, when it becomes proven stupidity....
"I do not agree with what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it"
It is a damage to accountability, but how much is it really? Telling the press (and the public) that they have to wait until after the trial has concluded is something that's been done for many years. Lots of courts have issued publication bans to the media during a trial. As long as the publication ban is removed as soon as the verdict is rendered, is it really that damaging to the accountability?
It's a sword that cuts both ways, especially in a jury trial. If the prosecution feels they have a weak case, they may try to poison the jury pool, however if the defence feels they can make themselves into a martyr to assist their weak case, then they can also do that. To help defend against that, either side can run to the judge for a publication ban, and this just removes that step. It forces both sides to do their fighting in the courtroom itself, and not on the steps outside.
Should a publication ban be in place until all legal avenues have been exhaused? No. An investigation and trial can last for many years. Until both sides have the option to go to in front of a judge to present their cases no publication ban should exist. Once the court procedings have moved onto the appeal stage no publication ban should exist. During the inital trial (at least until the jury has been picked), I can see the justification of a publication ban. Ideally, for a jury you want to pick the most unbiased people you can. A automatic 30 day publication ban (starting once the defendant has seen a judge and been formally charged, but removeable at the judges discretion just as imposing a ban is) can help with that. Once the jury has been picked though, to continue the publication ban requires a signed order from the judge (and one that can be appealed). I'm not entirely happy with that compromise, but given the medias abilty to sensationalize even the most minor events (not that it would ever happen on /.), I would be able to live with that.
Now, if that makes sense to anyone, could you please explain it to me? I think I've confused myself.
they also stop from reporting on terrorist threat hype also, then it may balance out ?
Or what happened to kick up this fuss in the first place could happen to you, where a man was detained and interrogated without charge, found innocent yet still has a permanent record as a terrorist security risk. Good luck living a normal life with that stigma. He wants this censorship because he royally fucked up his job as AFP Commissioner and the embarrassment and media exposure has probably cost him his job.
"Whether the story breaks out way before the defendant reaches the court or on the day of he still enjoys the exact same legal rights."
"The media doesn't protect people's rights, the courts do."
You have contradicted your own argument, if the media has no effect on a persons rights then it shouldn't matter what (or when) they report.
That's true - for regular trials. But here we have trials for nebulously defined "terrorism", which you can just randomly (from your perspective) end up in with no proper charges raised against you. They're putting people to trial because they feel like it and just being the defendant in such a trial means that you'll probably be regarded a terrorism risk by many nations.
It's scary enough that they can do that. The process requires absolute and total transparency as far as possible without revealing security-relevant information. Nobody should be randomly tried without everyone knowing about it, especially not in such a potentially life-ruining way. And the people should know about it when it happens, not after the fact.
Secret above-the-law trials are just about the last thing we need. Manipulating data after the fact is easy, hence any special terrorist trials should be broadcasted live. By more then one source.
USE HOT GRITS WITH STATUE OF NATALIE PORTMAN (NAKED AND PETRIFIED)
The normal laws of contempt and jepordising a trial apply - NOTHING need be done, as the existing laws are perfectly adequate, and if its really sensitive the existing in-camera applications can be made - unless you are saying magistrates cannot be trusted. Compared to prejudcial comments, and leaks by the supposed good guys, this case proved the proponents unworthy and untrustworthy liars. Liars should not escape scruitiny, no matter who they are.