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."

Comments

1984

[pwnies]

If the media can only report what the courts tell them, then who's to say that the information isn't censored? Seems very 1984ish to me. If Australia takes this step, it's only a matter of time before they're creating news altogether.

Re:1984

[Psychotria]

Well, I can somewhat understand his (and your) reasoning--it prevents "trial by public opinion". However, why couldn't the alleged terrorism and details be reported on, while at the same time keeping the name(s) of the suspects secret? A blanket-ban on reporting on terrorism could be seen as irresponsible. For example, if I heard that Mr-X had been captured and it became apparent that he was targeting my local nightclub (whatever), then I'd stay the hell away. With no reporting on the subject at all, I may well go out for a beer and end up with an molotov cocktail (so to speak).

Re:1984

[Redlazer]

They are ALL freedom-hating political hacks, because there is more power to gain from restriction the freedom of others, than there is in setting others free.

-Red

Are you kidding me?

[metlin]

Wow, seriously.

It always starts small -- shut down the press for this reason, and then expand and control.

Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it. I simply cannot believe that people would make such recommendations, and not understand the import of their intent.

It's one thing for a tin-pot dictator in the middle of nowhere to do so, and it is quite another for someone in a position of authority in a western-styled democracy to make such statements. Then again, could be that the position of authority is what's making him make such statements.

I am just... baffled.

Re:Are you kidding me?

[Nefarious Wheel]

To misquote the fictitious but very wise Samuel Vimes, "If you start censoring for good reasons, pretty soon you'll be censoring them for bad ones".

Re:Are you kidding me?

[dbIII]

Some background on this. This guy tried trial by media when the court would not give him his way and it backfired spectacularly. What he dreamed of being a dramatic showcase terrorism trial did not work, so he leaked bits of interrogation transcripts out of context to the media and then the defence leaked the bits that put them into context.

So how did this start? A doctor that had the misfortune to be related to a terrorist suspect received a bit of heavy handed treatment that previously would have been beyond Australian law and various bits of "spin" were realeased to try to justify this. Vast numbers of people normally not connected with law enforcement were involved since this was the first real test of Australia's anti-terrorist organisations. When they found nothing it all came down to pretending it was real to try to save face and justify expense. The media was initially bluffed but when it finally came time for him to be charged the courts were not. At that point the Australian media were upset that they were manipulated with very poorly constructed lies and turned on the AFP taking delight in each new revelation of utter incompentance.

Re:It's just not fair!

[riseoftheindividual]

They will doubtless be discussed many, MANY times more.

I'll admit I'm ignorant of how it works in Australia, but here rights encroachment generally happens in one of two ways:
The politicians keep discussing it over the years and eventually it push it through, usually on the back of some shocking-to-the-public-conscience event. Like weapons regulations get tightened every time some little girl dies at the hands of some asshole who used a gun. See we can't hang him because we have to respect his civil rights so instead we limit the civil right to bear arms for everyone else while our system goes out of its way to put on a show of respecting the civil rights of the animal actually guilty of the crime.
The other way is that a politician or civil leader(often law enforcement officers) will make an outrageous demand, moving the bar of outrage causing comments substantially, then the actual steps taken, though they were unthinkable just a few years before, don't seem so bad.
Anyway, I hope that's not how your system works down there.

Re:Not That Bad

[Farmer Tim]

The police are hoping for a little temporary discretion from the media while terrorism cases (always an emotive point nowadays) are being investigated.

IMO the AFP should not expect that when they themselves leak details of the investigation to the media.

Re:The AFP are just getting pissy.

[freedom_india]

Isn't it a paradox?
The country with 16 amendments, oldest republic, has the judiciary and the executive hell bent on supressing the hard won Habeus Corpus and Innocent-until-proven-guilty concepts?

  While a continent which is still under the rule of a queen, does not have constitutionally guaranteed rights against seizure, privacy, etc., the judiciary is hell bent on making sure the congress[parliment] and the Executive do NOT trample upon individual rights and privacy?

I have always found it a paradox.

A country with so many laws on privacy, freedom, etc., holds its own citizens in jail without a trial, while,
A country with no laws or even a constitution guaranteeing such rights provides so much freedom of thought and action...

Perspective.

[TapeCutter]

Compare no, link yes! This is Mick trying to cover Mick's arse by blaming the media. Previously he has tried to blame scotland yard, Indian police, unidentified tipsters, the chief prosecuter, disloyal officers, and of course Haneef himself. Personly I am suprised he hasn't thought of pinning the mess on Corey

Mick's problem is not that he prostitutes his position to curry political favour, it's the fact that everyone knows it.

As for Labour sticking with Mick, not a chance! Remeber in 2000 the AFP raided the home of a Labour MP's adviser in what amounted to a fishing expedition on opposition foreign policy of the time. Labour will relish doing Mick slowly and publicly with the promised full blown inquiry. As for Labour being any better, well soak in the irony of Rudd suggesting Mick's opinion on censorship should be censored.

Re:Perspective.

[fabs64]

Where's the -1 Liar moderation?

The link you provided does not have anyone calling for keelty to be gagged, simply the government stating that the opinions expressed by him are not theirs and they strongly disagree with them.