Australian Police Chief Seeks Terror Reporting Ban 146
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."
It's just not fair! (Score:5, Insightful)
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.
Re:1984 (Score:5, Insightful)
Sorry, but these pack of freedom-hating political hacks ain't that much different than Howard's bunch of freedom-hating political hacks.
Halt to criticism of Keelty (Score:5, Insightful)
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.
Re:Not supported by the Governement (Score:4, Insightful)
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.
Re:1984 (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:1984 (Score:3, Insightful)
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.
Re:1984 (Score:4, Insightful)
Why he's pissed... (Score:1, Insightful)
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...
The AFP are just getting pissy. (Score:5, Insightful)
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.
Delivered to... (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:Are you kidding me? (Score:3, Insightful)
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.
Re:1984 (Score:4, Insightful)
Yah, proven stupidity has limits, potential stupidity is boundless. At least until the wave function collapses, when it becomes proven stupidity....
Re:1984 (Score:5, Insightful)
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.
as long as (Score:1, Insightful)
Re:1984 (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:I don't understand your criticisms (Score:3, Insightful)
"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.
Re:1984 (Score:5, Insightful)
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.
Re:The AFP are just getting pissy. (Score:2, Insightful)
I agree with you whole heartily though, many of Australia's rights are "implied" in the constitution and exist merely through the High [Supreme] Court's "creative" interpretations.
Such as the implied right for Political speech in Australian Captial Television Pty Ltd v. Commonwealth (1992) which was also extended in 1994 in Theophanous v. The Herald And Weekly Times. Australia also took an active role in 1948 when drafting the United Nations Declaration of Human Rights in 1948.
Unfortunately, many attempts to introduce entrenched Human Rights into the constitution such Lionel Murphy in 1973 and 1985 with the Federal attorney-general have failed before they even reached the stage of a referendum. So really the argument of Australia's intent to protect right could go both ways. Despite what one thinks, there is opportunity for the Australian government to abuse the lack of rights but it hasn't happened.
Re:1984 (Score:1, Insightful)