Being able to forcefully disclose a journalists sources would not be permitted anywhere else in the world. We need reforms, not cow-towing to these disgusting authoritarian tactics.
Not to mention that this is clearly political. This comes on the eve of an election, and is related to articles published ~2 years ago. Not to mention the most recent article in question described alleged war crimes by the Australian military. But there's no legal investigation into that law breaking, all that matters is that the whistleblower is arrested and made an example of.
I hope we one day see an anti-corruption commission and pass laws protecting whistleblowers and a free press. But it's going to be a long road.
* Australia does have an implied constitutional right to freedom of political communication: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Australian_constitutional_law#... * The federal election was on May 18, this search was on June 4th, well after the election. If anything, the AFP may have waited long enough to ensure this did not affect the election.
Yes, I am aware of that but it's simply not sufficient. While there are the 1992 interpretations, there has been significant evidence that the High Court is handcuffed by the lack of language in the constitution about individual freedom. There are also many subsequent cases where the protection was not granted.
But lets not forget that "freedom of political communication" comes from the fact that any Australian has the right to run as a political candidate and discuss political ideas. It's already an incredibly stretched usage of the intentuon of the preamble of the constitution.
Lets also not forget that the Liberal government tried to make it a crime (punishable with 5 years imprisonment) to post YouTube videos that have government logos in them -- unless they constituted "genuine satire". The fact that "freedom of political communication" didn't kill the idea from the outset tells you how weak the protection really is.
> The federal election was on May 18, this search was on June 4th, well after the election. If anything, the AFP may have waited long enough to ensure this did not affect the election.
I didn't say that their actions affect the election, I said it was political. If they really thought this was purely about justice they would've conducted the raids last year, but they conducted them ~2 weeks after the election now that the Liberal government is back in power again with a majority. Dutton and Morrison claim that they have nothing to do with it, but that's complete bullshit -- the AFP are now being run by Home Affairs (Dutton's turf). Police generally don't start prosecuting whistleblowers without government pressure.
There is a research paper published in 1998 by the Australian Parliament which outlines the many arguments why we need stronger constitutional rights[1]. Unfortunately, we have had a referendum on this topic before and it was categorically refused[2] (though the constitutional amendment being proposed was incredibly weak and that might've been the reason it was refused).
[1]: https://www.aph.gov.au/About_Parliament/Parliamentary_Depart... [2]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1988_Australian_referendum#Rig...
I think it's more important for those responsible for the cold-blooded murder of innocent civilians to be publicly held to account than for the government's "right" to keep those killings secret, even if the law favors the latter.
I think we need to look at the specific information in question.
FYI here's a summary of Australia shield laws [1] (sorry, it's not very good)
[1] https://www.theguardian.com/world/2013/aug/07/australia-jour...
I'm not sure what Australia you live in.
We are currently torturing asylum seekers, with unlimited detention periods (the only nation on earth who allows this). A recent whistleblower that showed corruption within the ATO (to Americans: the IRS) is facing charges that would land him with 160 years in prison. We've neglected and abused the native population to the point that Aboriginal teenager suicide rates are among the highest in the world. Our education system is failing to the point where our education system has the same standards as third world nations -- we rank lower in science and maths than Kazakhstan. In 2015, laws were passed to punish whistleblowers, journalists, AND THE PUBLIC if ASIO (Americans: the NSA) information becomes public. We are the only nation on earth to pass draconian anti-privacy laws that other nations' leaders can only dream of. We don't have any laws guaranteeing freedom of speech, privacy, or any other freedoms we take for granted -- and we are the only western democracy where this is the case.
Don't get me wrong, I hope Australia does get better -- after all, I deeply want it to because I've grown up here. But if you think that the Australia of today is in any way "one of the most open, free and fair places in the world" you're simply mistaken. Yes it's better than living in Saudi Arabia but that shouldn't be an accomplishment.
The government is not interested in investigating these hideous abuses and conditions at all. In fact they were trying to find the whistleblowers (probably to prosecute them) rather than investigating the allegations of rape and torture[1].
[1]: https://www.smh.com.au/politics/federal/federal-government-a...
>Journalists should know that if they walk the fine line between legal and illegal then they run the risk of being investigated.
Sure, no disagreements there.
>If they're confident they're on the right side of the law then they have little to worry about.
This is not the issue, the issue here is clearly intimidation by government entities that wish to silence the media. Right side of the law doesn't matter to the law if you have the right dirt. The right dirt will get your killed.
>What I take exception to is their attitude, as if it's some great affront to decency and democracy that they should come under any kind of scrutiny.
It certainly is a great affront to decency and democracy when the work the journalists are involved in is exposing behavior unfitting for the government. We're not talking about twitter accounts being suspended for saying unsavory things, we're talking about large organizations being raided by the entities they are investigating. Clearly these are distinct situations.
>I don't see many people hurling childish insults on HN, but here you are.
I call it like I see it. People like you are the reason that so much of our world is non-transparent. You might be ok with that, I am not.
I don't see many people hurling childish insults on HN, but here you are.
It really does matter what is being published.
You can't go ahead and publish for example the locations of US ballistic missile sites and say 'hey, freedom of expression'.
The real problem lies where information is considered classified, but at the same time, there's a legit case to be made for whistle blowing.
I don't think Manning's leaks actually constitute whistle blowing, and while much of Snowden's data certainly did, a lot of the other data definitely did not, ergo there's possibility for real crime there.
Agree or disagree with that - it's basically going to be up to the journalist to have to decided if it's truly whistle blowing or not, which can only be found in courts at a later date.
So it's a tough one.
It's also tough to establish in 2019 who constitutes 'journalist'.
I wish there were a system we could put in place for this.
No, totally false. There's a considerable amount of information that you cannot publish. Both information managed by the state, and information that is private to individuals and organizations.
There's a considerable amount of information that many individuals would like to publish that definitely does not constitute 'whistle blowing'.
It's not a 'straw man argument' because the issue is relevant every day to journalists trying to make this decision.
There's considerable consternation among even major/professional media outlets about what parts of leaks they can publish, what they can't, moreover, there are entities (i.e. bloggers) who'd just publish whatever, whenever, without considering the consequences if they didn't have to.
So sorry, you can't publish pictures of your naked girlfriend, or private medical records of employees, or many state secrets.
2) Manning published gigabytes of data for which he had no knowledge of the contents - this is not 'whistle blowing', moreover, his publication of the video journalists dying in a war zone does not fit this description either.
Nobody has the right to enter into a firefight in the most dangerous location in the world, and to not inform the combatants (as per protocol) and expect that they will be treated with the normal rules of application of violence in a civilian area.
Of course, were the journalists were to have informed the US forces of their intentions, they would have been told to 'absolutely not enter because your safety will be ensured'.
The video shows the folly of individuals who think they can just walk into a war zone with cameras. There was no crime.
3) "Finally, why should free speech protections be restricted to journalists?"
Well, first consider that 'shield laws' as they exist generally only apply to journalists, so take that up with the government, but it hints at my point which is that the 'rules are vague'.
Your understanding of 'freedom of speech' as conveyed by your comment seems to be flawed: nobody ever had the right to publish 'whatever' under the guise of 'freedom of speech'.
Summary:
- There is information that cannot be published, there is no debate here.
- The rules at to what can be published is unclear.
- The 'shield laws' are vague, and especially the terms of what constitutes 'journalist' is vague, further complicating things.
So if we want the journalists to be able to 'do their jobs' we may need better, clearer regulation.
I'm always amazed how qickly the media closes ranks when one of their own is perceived to be under attack. The outcry is always from other journalists.