Two gay Saudi journalists ‘treated like criminals’ in Australia after seeking asylum | Australia news | The Guardian


Exclusive: Men who fled own country after threats to out them have been detained in Australia

Source: Two gay Saudi journalists ‘treated like criminals’ in Australia after seeking asylum | Australia news | The Guardian

Journalism’s Assange problem : THe Conversation


These days, anybody with an internet connection can be a publisher.

That doesn’t make everybody a journalist.

This distinction has become more important than ever in light of two recent events.

One was the arrest of WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange. The other was a proposal by lawmakers from Georgia, the Peach State, that looked more like an export from the Georgia that was part of the Soviet Union: a so-called “ethics in journalism” act that would have imposed onerous new requirements and potential civil penalties on reporters.

As soon as news broke of Assange’s potential extradition to the United States for trial on charges of conspiracy, his allies began campaigning to make him a Fourth Estate martyr.

“Every journalist in the world” should be speaking out on Assange’s behalf, said Intercept editor Glenn Greenwald. Another fugitive leaker of U.S. government secrets, Edward Snowden, tweeted that Assange’s arrest represents “a dark day for press freedom.”

As two journalism professors who practiced the craft for many years before becoming teachers of it, we know firsthand how powerfully reporters are drawn to unpopular causes. It’s an admirable reflex that often makes for great journalism and a better society.

But granting Assange journalist status is beyond problematic: It’s likely to draw more attacks on press freedom such as the Georgia lawmakers’ thinly disguised attempt to sanction and ostracize journalists whose work they don’t like.

 

Source: Journalism’s Assange problem  : The Conversation

Trump Will Lose CNN’s Acosta Suit. Does It Matter? – Bloomberg


CNN is going to win the First Amendment lawsuit it filed Tuesday against President Donald Trump’s White House for taking away reporter Jim Acosta’s press pass. And the sad truth is that Trump won’t mind at all.

As the president has shown repeatedly, he doesn’t especially care if, after he violates the Constitution, the courts reverse his action. Instead of understanding judicial repudiation as a defeat, Trump sees the whole episode as a victory.

Worse still, taken in this political context, he’s right. The Constitution is working. But Trump has found a way to subvert it anyhow.

Last week, the White House revoked the pass that allowed Acosta, CNN’s chief White House correspondent, to work in and around the building unescorted. Press secretary Sarah Huckabee Sanders announced that the administration had done so because Acosta had placed his hands on an aide when she tried to take a microphone from him during a news conference. Acosta and the president had been clashing over a question about immigration and the midterm campaign.

The law governing the Acosta case, filed in Federal District Court on behalf of the reporter and the network, is relatively straightforward. The president doesn’t have any constitutional obligation to open the White House to the press. He can choose which reporters he would like to meet with privately, and he can prefer certain networks, like Fox News, for his own appearances or for exclusive interviews.

Once the White House has opened itself up to all accredited reporters with press passes, however, the government has created what is in effect a forum for free speech in interaction with the president. It’s black letter law that, in such a “limited-purpose public forum,” the government isn’t allowed to discriminate based on a speaker’s viewpoint.

That’s exactly what’s happened to Acosta. Trump made clear during the news conference that he doesn’t like the reporter, calling him a “rude, terrible person” and “the enemy of the people.” Trump doesn’t like Acosta’s viewpoint, so Acosta was banned from using White House press facilities.

There’s a judicial precedent on this point. In a 1977 case, Sherrill v. Knight, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit, whose jurisdiction includes the White House, held that the First Amendment applies to reporters seeking press passes. And it specifically concluded that the White House couldn’t deny a press pass to a reporter without explaining what the criterion was and telling him how he violated that criterion.

At the time, the doctrine of the limited public forum wasn’t fully in place. But the D.C. Circuit opinion effectively foreshadowed the same idea. The court said it was “presented with a situation where the White House has voluntarily decided to establish press facilities for correspondents who need to report therefrom. These press facilities are perceived as being open to all bona fide Washington-based journalists.”

 

Source: Trump Will Lose CNN’s Acosta Suit. Does It Matter? – Bloomberg

Don’t let politicians destroy Press freedom: Act NOW if you want to help defend the right to read a website like MailOnline : Daily Mail.


The freedom of the press is a right to maintain for they should be the eyes and ears of the public. T/oro place any restrictions on this is creating a state where anyone of wealth, influence and/or power could act against matters where there is a public interest. MPs expenses being a point of example.

Freedom of the press at risk


Press freedom

I rarely agree with Shami Chakrabati, but with this I do, while I in no way agree with how the press conducted themselves, we do need to retain the freedom of the press. In no way should legal restraints be applied. To do so would leave the press vulnerable to political misuse in the future. I do believe that a more stringent code of practice is required to which all printed news media should be required to join. If a publication prints untruths there are the Laws of Libel. Unfortunately this is not a criminal law, but is under civil law. So is mostly only available if the defamed person as money to spend on the action. I believe that a form of libel law should be enshrined in criminal law, hence it would be available to all.

As to Ed Miliband he is just trying to make political capital out of the situation.