

British Press Banned from Reporting Parliament. Seriously. - Zarkonnen
http://www.spectator.co.uk/alexmassie/5417651/british-press-banned-from-reporting-parliament-seriously.thtml

======
danw
Here is the question asked in the parlimentary records:
[http://www.publications.parliament.uk/cgi-
bin/newhtml_hl?DB=...](http://www.publications.parliament.uk/cgi-
bin/newhtml_hl?DB=semukparl&STEMMER=en&WORDS=trafigura&ALL=trafigura&ANY=&PHRASE=&CATEGORIES=&SIMPLE=&SPEAKER=&COLOUR=red&STYLE=s&ANCHOR=muscat_highlighter_first_match&URL=/pa/cm200809/cmordbk2/91013o02.htm#muscat_highlighter_first_match)

And here is the report in question on wikileaks:
[http://wikileaks.org/wiki/Minton_report:_Trafigura_Toxic_dum...](http://wikileaks.org/wiki/Minton_report:_Trafigura_Toxic_dumping_along_the_Ivory_Coast_broke_EU_regulations%2C_14_Sep_2006)

What's interesting is some Guardian staffers are tweeting links to the
wikileaks on their personal accounts. Are they covered by the gag order on The
Guardian itself?

~~~
ionfish
The #trafigura hashtag on Twitter is going a bit crazy.

<http://twitter.com/search?q=%23trafigura>

On the one hand, it's good that news that needs to get out gets out. On the
other, I can't help thinking how easy it is to rustle up a lynch mob these
days.

~~~
danw
Turning a few hours of online outrage into something actionable that fixes the
problem is hard. Like with the Iran elections.

~~~
tarkin2
Still, it's good to see how modern technology has allowed ordinary people a)
to access to such censored documents, and b) to gain access to those who are
willing to do the research to obtain a, and advertise such. Without it I'd
just be reading the Guardian, getting fairly outraged. In fact, I probably
wouldn't have heard about it, as I wouldn't have flicked through the Guardian
had it not been online (I don't like it so much to spend one pound on a paper
when I'm generally only interested in a couple of articles, on average).

It's a step in the right direction. Not the whole solution, just yet.

------
patio11
The Guardian and I rarely see eye to eye on anything and, honestly, its been a
while since I would have assumed that factual representations made on its
pages should be treated to a presumption of accuracy.

That said, for once, I appreciate the righteous indignation about the sacred
mission of the press (usually invoked in the service of their own power and
privilege, not in the interest of the public per se) and the writing is a
masterpiece of British wit. ("Legal obstacles, which cannot be identified,
involve proceedings, which cannot be mentioned, on behalf of a client who must
remain secret." is beautiful.)

------
jlees
The Guardian successfully challenged the ban:
<http://twitter.com/arusbridger/status/4833101511>

~~~
robin_reala
…and their associated article:
[http://www.guardian.co.uk/media/2009/oct/13/guardian-
gagged-...](http://www.guardian.co.uk/media/2009/oct/13/guardian-gagged-
parliamentary-question)

------
dtf
Carter-Ruck, "London's best-known and most feared libel lawyers", obviously
still have a thing or two to learn about PR in the internet age. If Trafigura
are trying to shy away from their their bad guy image, this isn't helping.

------
ionfish
I thought links to sources were preferred over blogs regurgitating them? It
would have been just as easy to simply link to the Guardian article [1].
Supposedly this is related to their reporting on the oil company Trafigura's
alleged cover-up of intentional pollution in west Africa.

[1] [http://www.guardian.co.uk/media/2009/oct/12/guardian-
gagged-...](http://www.guardian.co.uk/media/2009/oct/12/guardian-gagged-from-
reporting-parliament)

[2] [http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2009/sep/16/trafigura-oil-
iv...](http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2009/sep/16/trafigura-oil-ivory-coast)

~~~
ErrantX
Well as the guardian is prevented from publishing the question it probably
makes sense to link to someone who can tie up the whole story...

~~~
danw
In which case pointing the story link at wikileaks which carries the report,
the MPs question and a link to the Guardian "we're gagged" story would have
been best.

~~~
ErrantX
You mean rather like this blog does... ;)

Sorry I don't mean to "fight" over it but the Spectator is press as well.

~~~
ionfish
They're still a secondary source, regardless of how well they happen to be
credentialed.

~~~
ErrantX
As is Wikileaks

~~~
ionfish
Wikileaks is a provider of primary sources, like any good historical archive.
In this case it's providing a PDF of the Minton report. The summary Wikileaks
provide is, of course, a secondary source, but people are linking to the page
because it hosts the PDF, not because it happens to summarise the contents of
the report and its historical context.

The Guardian, reporting on the Trafigura case, are a secondary source (when
referencing the report), and a primary source when writing about the gagging
order that has been applied to them. The Spectator blog article is a secondary
source writing about the gagging order. These distinctions are standard in
both historiography and journalism.

------
jrockway
It would be a "shame" if the information the Guardian has was leaked to a US-
based newspaper. UK laws do not apply over here :)

~~~
patio11
_UK laws do not apply over here_

In actual practice US and UK courts routinely enforce each other's judgments
("comity"), which is why libel tourism works.

[http://online.wsj.com/article/SB121599561708449643.html?mod=...](http://online.wsj.com/article/SB121599561708449643.html?mod=googlenews_wsj)

~~~
jrockway
But libel is a crime in both places, whereas reporting on Parliament is only a
crime in one.

~~~
ErrantX
actually technically it's not a crime here (UK) either. ;)

would be interesting to see if they could uphold a gag order in the US. I
would hope not

------
axod
Boring politics belong on Reddit IMHO. Not at the top of HN.

~~~
Zarkonnen
Well, this is about allegations of toxic waste dumping done on behalf of
Trafigura, which has poisoned hundreds and possibly killed some people.

I'm sorry if you feel that corporate murder is a boring topic.

~~~
axod
I just prefer reading about this sort of thing other places. Not on HN.

You're right though, reading about corporate murder doesn't interest me :/
Just like reading about serial killers doesn't interest me all that much.

You seem to be implying somehow that I think corporate murder is ok or not a
serious issue :/ An odd leap you're making there.

~~~
tarkin2
"I just prefer reading about this sort of thing other places. Not on HN."

To be fair, this does involve the use of twitter, and other social news sites,
and technology in general, to challenge existing legal/PR practices i.e.
trying to gag news sites. Furthermore, it may be possible that the twitter-
storm made Carter Ruck decide that by sticking to their guns the storm would
increase, thereby working against their aim of minimising Trafigura's
publicity.

It's a good example of how the internet changes society, providing the
internet did play a role in Carter Ruck's decision to cave in, which I would
guess is likely.

~~~
axod
I really really doubt twitter had anything to do with anything here.

~~~
tarkin2
Carter Ruck were trying to suppress anyone knowing about the report, to such
an extent that they tried to stop the Guardian reporting on a parliamentary
question that spoke about it. Twitter, fueled from the outrage in regard to
gagging the Guardian, started to link to that report extensively.

The longer Carter Ruck decided to persue this course of action, the more
Twitter would link to the report. Therefore, it was wise for Carter Ruck to
remove Twitter's fuel. It was wise to stop attempting to gag the Guardian.
(Attempting to sue all those on Twitter would be unfeasible, and suing Twitter
itself would add even more fuel to the fire)

I have no proof this is what Carter Ruck thought. But it's certainly a logical
and sensible course of action for Carter Ruck, which makes it likely.

~~~
axod
Interesting theory, but come on. I doubt they know what twitter is.

~~~
petewarden
I'm not so sure about Twitter's specific role, but the easy availability of
online stories does make a massive difference. If you want to see a much more
successful attempt to gag the British press, check out the Spycatcher
nonsense: <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spycatcher>

That was 1987, and the main difference was the lack of easy access to foreign
controlled media from within the UK made it possible to prevent people reading
anything about the allegations in the book. This latest attempt shows that's
no longer possible.

~~~
anigbrowl
HN readers might find that interesting, not only because of the legal
ramifications but because SpyCatcher detailed much (not all) of the UK
security services' use of public key cryptography, around the same time that
PGP was starting to gain traction in the US and the US government attempted to
label the algorithm as a 'munition'. Lovers of cloak-and-dagger spycraft were
rather disappointed in the book but it's interesting, if dated, for anyone
with an interest in strong crypto.

