The president of Mauritius has said the island’s TV channels are unfair and partial. Mike Dodd reports
His organisation’s name was on the marquee, but no-one invited him to the party. We understand there was no attempt at all to invite Rupert Murdoch to last week’s Paris conference on The Media World after WikiLeaks and News of the World.
In contrast the founder of WikiLeaks, Julian Assange, couldn’t attend the conference, being unable to leave the UK for well-documented reasons.
But his organisation says they only got eight days notice that they could send a representative, circumstances that Wikileaks spokesman Kristinn Hrafnsson characterised as a de facto ban on their participation and “censorship”.
Hrafnsson was particularly exercised by the speaker list, which included several journalists who seem to have crossed Assange in the past.
In fact the principles of transparency and justice that WikiLeaks espouse were well defended by the brilliant Jérémie Zimmermann, co-founder of the citizen advocacy group La Quadrature du Net. It was left to him to remind everyone that of the two accused organisations, only one does what they do for corporate profit.
Not speaking for Assange, but still supportive, was WikiLeaks’ occasional legal advisor, Geoffrey Robertson QC. (Robertson’s quip of the day, after counting Assange as a “great Australian”, was to say the same of Murdoch, but only “in the sense that Atilla was a great Hun”.)
The end result was a shortlived attempt to stoke outrage on Twitter and what turned out to be an unheeded call to WikiLeaks supporters to #OccupyUNESCO, the United Nations cultural agency that was hosting the event.
The organisers, the World Press Freedom Committee (WPFC), and UNESCO itself, argued that the conference was about journalism in the wake of the WikiLeaks and News of the World sagas, “and not about the episodes themselves”.
WPFC asserted its right to pick the speakers they liked, but offered to distribute a WikiLeaks statement “and include it in the published conference proceedings”; it was left to UNESCO to invite a WikiLeaks representative a week later.
On the eve of the conference, UNESCO reconfirmed to Index on Censorship that if Hrafnsson wanted to attend, he would be allowed to speak. He didn’t attend. The e-mail trail between Hrafnsson and the organisers is here.
It is odd to call a conference to discuss a media landscape transformed by WikiLeaks and the News of the World, then not invite from the outset, people to speak for the pair that did the transforming.
Most interesting — in what was still a useful event — would have been to hear how the two key actors in the two very different dramas were themselves redefining their own organisations’ roles in their wake.
Murdoch was that very day in London reinventing the News of the World as the Sun on Sunday, while WikiLeaks’ own reinvention, as part of The Global Square, an online global collaboration peer-to-peer platform for activists, is due to prototype next month.
Human Rights lawyer Geoffrey Robertson QC was this week awarded the New York Bar Association’s annual award for distinction in law and international affairs. In his acceptance speech he proposed new legal principles for whistleblowers:
The First Amendment to the US Constitution is based on Madison’s principle that government information should be the people’s information too. I currently have a client, in Mr Julian Assange, who takes Madison’s principle to what some politicians and diplomats see as extremes. WikiLeaks has certainly made people around the world better informed about what their rulers do not tell them, but to tell the US Embassy instead. This is not the place to discuss my controversial client, other than to express the hope that he remains alive to give me instructions. Joe Biden and Mick Huckabee want him treated like a terrorist, Rush Limbaugh yearns for him “to die from lead poisoning from a bullet in the brain”, while Sarah Palin, as ever shooting from the lip, says “he should be hunted down like Bin Laden” (I suppose that would give him nine more years of freedom).
These shrill, exaggerated voices calling for the messenger to be killed come unhappily from the land of the First Amendment. WikiLeaks, whatever its failings, has at least enlightened the people of many countries around the world, from Tunisia to Indonesia, who now realise what their governments have been up to and how truly corrupt those governments are. It might be thought that the most astonishing secret revealed by WikiLeaks is that US diplomacy is both principled and pragmatic and that most foreign leaders place upon the United States the heavy burden of world leadership, most urgently in dealing with Iran and the prospect of a nuclear bomb in the hands of mullahs without mercy.
It can only diminish US leadership and dim the beacon of the First Amendment, to raise that old blunderbuss the Espionage Act of 1917, death penalty and all, and aim it beyond the jurisdiction at a publisher who is the citizen of a friendly country. Nor can it be helpful to America’s reputation for respecting due process to amend it retrospectively, as Senator Lieberman has suggested. What the WikiLeaks phenomenon calls for, surely, is a cool-headed appraisal not only of US government classification policy — these cables were apparently accessibly to over 2 million public servants, including 22 year olds — but to developing international media law principles for dealing with worldwide publishers of national security information.
A sensible rule might contain these principles:
1. Citizens everywhere have a democratic right to know what a government does in their name;
2. Governments and their public servants bear sole responsibility for protecting properly classified information;
3. Outsiders who receive or communicate confidential government information should not be prosecuted unless they have obtained it by fraud or bribery or duress;
4. National security exceptions should be precisely defined, should protect the identity of sources who are at risk of reprisals but should not stop whistleblowers from revealing human rights violations – the public has, at the very least, a right to know when a war fought in its name is killing innocent civilians through illegal targeting decisions.
I do not advance these principles as definitive but as the basis for a debate that the US Justice Department should be prepared to engage in with publishers – the New York Times, Der Spiegel and The Guardian and Mr Assange included. It might end in an agreement that could be the basis for injunctive action in national courts, but not for criminal prosecution of publishers. That, surely, is wholly antipathetic to the spirit of the First Amendment.
Peter Noorlander of the Media Legal Defence Initiative warns that today’s action by Max Mosley at the European Court of Human Rights could have grave consequences for free media
(more…)
