Linked by Thom Holwerda on Tue 20th Aug 2013 10:39 UTC
In the News Another checkmark in our road towards a totalitarian society: government intimidating the free press, destroying materials, and threatening to take them to court - to shut down a newspaper. No joke. The British government demanded that The Guardian hand over all materials related to Edward Snowden so that they could be destroyed. If the newspaper did not comply, the British government would go to court to shut down The Guardian.

The mood toughened just over a month ago, when I received a phone call from the centre of government telling me: "You've had your fun. Now we want the stuff back." There followed further meetings with shadowy Whitehall figures. The demand was the same: hand the Snowden material back or destroy it. I explained that we could not research and report on this subject if we complied with this request. The man from Whitehall looked mystified. "You've had your debate. There's no need to write any more."

During one of these meetings I asked directly whether the government would move to close down the Guardian's reporting through a legal route - by going to court to force the surrender of the material on which we were working. The official confirmed that, in the absence of handover or destruction, this was indeed the government's intention.

The newspaper told the government that even if they did comply, it would be pointless - all the materials related to Snowden had already been spread throughout the world, the actual editing was done in New York, the journalist in question (Greenwald) lived in Brazil - but the British government stood fast.

And so one of the more bizarre moments in the Guardian's long history occurred - with two GCHQ security experts overseeing the destruction of hard drives in the Guardian's basement just to make sure there was nothing in the mangled bits of metal which could possibly be of any interest to passing Chinese agents. "We can call off the black helicopters," joked one as we swept up the remains of a MacBook Pro.

Yeah.

Thread beginning with comment 570236
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
RE: Misleading and inaccurate title
by Morgan on Tue 20th Aug 2013 23:23 UTC in reply to "Misleading and inaccurate title"
Morgan
Member since:
2005-06-29

From the article:

The man from Whitehall looked mystified. "You've had your debate. There's no need to write any more."

During one of these meetings I asked directly whether the government would move to close down the Guardian's reporting through a legal route – by going to court to force the surrender of the material on which we were working. The official confirmed that, in the absence of handover or destruction, this was indeed the government's intention.


I can see where it can be inferred. The first bold statement indicates that the government feels The Guardian should stop reporting on this story. The second and third expand on this and show the lengths the government will go towards silencing the press and hiding illegal activities from the public.

Reply Parent Score: 4

BeamishBoy Member since:
2010-10-27

I can see where it can be inferred. The first bold statement indicates that the government feels The Guardian should stop reporting on this story.


Which is entirely different from shutting down a newspaper. Shutting down a newspaper is what Rupert Murdoch did with the News of the World. This is something called prior restraint, a different matter altogether.

The second and third expand on this and show the lengths the government will go towards silencing the press and hiding illegal activities from the public.


Fair enough, but the suggestion that the government in this country would go so far as to actually close a newspaper is preposterous.

Reply Parent Score: 2

Morgan Member since:
2005-06-29

Which is entirely different from shutting down a newspaper. Shutting down a newspaper is what Rupert Murdoch did with the News of the World. This is something called prior restraint, a different matter altogether.


Telling a newspaper representative that the newspaper is not allowed to report on a story because it exposes illegal government activity is effectively shutting it down. Tell a stockbroker he can't buy and sell stocks and he's no longer a stockbroker. Telling a newspaper "you can't print this and we'll get a court order to make you stop" is the same thing.

Fair enough, but the suggestion that the government in this country would go so far as to actually close a newspaper is preposterous.


Given what they've already done? You're not seeing the pattern here. They detained a reporter's spouse without bringing charges and denied him counsel and interpreters, with the intent to intimidate and harass them. They are destroying newspaper property as a scare tactic to force them to stop reporting on government corruption. The next step is just what the agent said: Getting a court order to silence the newspaper's staff. With reporters under a gag order, they can't report the news. This effectively shutters the paper and silences the free press.

Reply Parent Score: 3