Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

The D-Notice: A British Way of Censoring the Press

thedissenter.org

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

41–50 of 89 posts

Re: The D-Notice: A British Way of Censoring the Press

#41

Post by Trumpi »

Trumpi wrote: post #35
notavalleyman wrote: post #8

I wanted to get behind this more but there were a few sections that had me doubting. 1. It says the UK media largely ignored the Snowden leaks due to a D-Notice - the source supplied didn't really back that up and it didn't sound right to me. Maybe someone can share examples of Snowden-leak-related stories which would have been in UK public interest but were only covered abroad? 2. It says the Steele dossier is large…

Regarding point 2: There is an ongoing trial at the moment where I expect we will see evidence against the Steele dossier. Here is the Grand Jury charge: https://www.justice.gov/sco/press-release/file/1433511/downl... I don't have access to Pacer to search for the other filings and the record so far, but the case number can be found at the top of the linked charge if anyone is interested in looking at this trial.

This lawsuit could also bring up evidence against the Steele dossier: https://openargs.com/wp-content/uploads/Trump-v-Clinton-laws...

Re: The D-Notice: A British Way of Censoring the Press

#42

Post by sofixa »

notavalleyman wrote: post #8

I wanted to get behind this more but there were a few sections that had me doubting. 1. It says the UK media largely ignored the Snowden leaks due to a D-Notice - the source supplied didn't really back that up and it didn't sound right to me. Maybe someone can share examples of Snowden-leak-related stories which would have been in UK public interest but were only covered abroad? 2. It says the Steele dossier is large…

Regarding 1, The Guardian, a UK based publication, was one of the main ones behind the Snowden interviews and reporting, so it seems to be a bogus claim.

Re: The D-Notice: A British Way of Censoring the Press

#43

Post by dijit »

sofixa wrote: post #42
notavalleyman wrote: post #8

I wanted to get behind this more but there were a few sections that had me doubting. 1. It says the UK media largely ignored the Snowden leaks due to a D-Notice - the source supplied didn't really back that up and it didn't sound right to me. Maybe someone can share examples of Snowden-leak-related stories which would have been in UK public interest but were only covered abroad? 2. It says the Steele dossier is large…

Regarding 1, The Guardian, a UK based publication, was one of the main ones behind the Snowden interviews and reporting, so it seems to be a bogus claim.

I do sincerely hope you're joking; the guardian got absolutely crucified by the british government at that time.

Their HQ was stormed by police along with forced compliance of the destruction of information:

https://www.techdirt.com/2013/08/19/uk-govt-forces-guardian-...

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2014/feb/01/edward-snowden...

That said; in theory D-Notice's are voluntary, but non-compliance is vaguely threatened with "increased scrutiny".

D-Notices themselves are not exactly secret; they even get a mention in the movie V For Vendetta.

Re: The D-Notice: A British Way of Censoring the Press

#44

Post by mistermann »

vkou wrote: post #36
stephen_g wrote: post #6

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The Assange case seems relevant and topical. And regardless, what side of the fence would you expect somebody writing an article about press freedom and censorship to be on? To support extraditing to the US somebody who has never lived or worked there, after it was revealed US officials literally planned to kidnap and/or assassinate him? [1]. And only for the charge of revealing war crimes (apart from some trumped up…

> And only for the charge of revealing war crimes (apart from some trumped up “hacking” charges that the key witness now admitted lying about? [2]). I've read the allegations. If the allegations are true, he's guilty of hacking. It does not seem to be a case of the law being perverted past its intent. I'm sure the extradition and prosecution is politically motivated, but the problem with doing something that's square…

> It'd be one thing if his supporters accepted the dead-to-rights-guilty part, and were making the claim that it was something akin to civil disobedience - illegal, but in service to a higher cause. Unfortunately, most of them are instead bending over backwards to argue that he can't actually guilty of anything. It's not very convincing.

Who, precisely, are you referring to here?

Re: The D-Notice: A British Way of Censoring the Press

#46

Post by xienze »

bena wrote: post #28
_dain_ wrote: post #14

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>2. It says the Steele dossier is largely discredited - I wasn't aware of any discrediting, let alone total. I don't know why the author thought this spin was necessary for the article. If you aren't aware of it, that's on you. Frankly it amazes me that people still think it's real.

It's real, it exists. But people who want to ignore it like to pretend it's something that it's not. It's raw intelligence. It's saying "Hey, here are things we heard you should check out." It's a lot like the VAERS database. It doesn't prove anything on its own, but it can indicate things we should look into more closely. And that's how a lot of people treated it: These are things we should probably check out.

> But people who want to ignore it like to pretend it's something that it's not. It's raw intelligence. It's saying "Hey, here are things we heard you should check out."

“Hey, I heard a few things about Biden raping babies, you should check it out.”

See how it might be important to use more than “raw intelligence” about “stuff you should probably check out” as the basis for an investigation and media witch hunt?

Re: The D-Notice: A British Way of Censoring the Press

#47

Post by pdabbadabba »

colpabar wrote: post #15
notavalleyman wrote: post #8

I wanted to get behind this more but there were a few sections that had me doubting. 1. It says the UK media largely ignored the Snowden leaks due to a D-Notice - the source supplied didn't really back that up and it didn't sound right to me. Maybe someone can share examples of Snowden-leak-related stories which would have been in UK public interest but were only covered abroad? 2. It says the Steele dossier is large…

According to the new york times: > Was the dossier a reliable source of information? > No. It has become clear over time that its sourcing was thin and sketchy. https://archive.ph/2fHH5 This was on page 1 of google for "steele dossier", and the title is "Why the Discredited Dossier Does Not Undercut the Russia Investigation", so it seems to be pretty widely accepted that it was a bunch of nonsense.

I think it's worth noting, though, that saying its "sourcing was thin and sketchy" is not the same thing as saying it was "a bunch of nonsense." Many of the allegations in it could, of course, still be true even if poorly sourced.

Re: The D-Notice: A British Way of Censoring the Press

#48

Post by tomalpha »

colordrops wrote: post #5
tomalpha wrote: post #4

The author is clearly against the extradition of Julian Assange, and the piece comes across as very much written in that context. To be clear: I'm not offering an opinion either way on the rights and wrongs of that, but the piece itself comes down very much on one side of the fence.

What's the implication? That the author is hiding the fact that this is an opinion piece? Or that it's odd to be against the extradition? It's called The Dissenter and they explicitly mention that they support whistleblowers in their about page.

I don't think it's going out of its way to hide the fact that it's an opinion piece. I wanted to highlight to someone unfamiliar with the case and issues (however few that may be around these parts), that it is an opinion piece. It makes assertions through a lens of a bias to one side of the case. There's nothing inherently wrong with that. Using the word "bias" isn't intended by me here as a slight - we're all biased to a greater or lesser degree about everything. But a casual reader should be aware of it without having to e.g. navigate to a separate "about" page :)

Re: The D-Notice: A British Way of Censoring the Press

#50

Post by pasabagi »

vkou wrote: post #36
stephen_g wrote: post #6

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The Assange case seems relevant and topical. And regardless, what side of the fence would you expect somebody writing an article about press freedom and censorship to be on? To support extraditing to the US somebody who has never lived or worked there, after it was revealed US officials literally planned to kidnap and/or assassinate him? [1]. And only for the charge of revealing war crimes (apart from some trumped up…

> And only for the charge of revealing war crimes (apart from some trumped up “hacking” charges that the key witness now admitted lying about? [2]). I've read the allegations. If the allegations are true, he's guilty of hacking. It does not seem to be a case of the law being perverted past its intent. I'm sure the extradition and prosecution is politically motivated, but the problem with doing something that's square…

> I've read the allegations. If the allegations are true, he's guilty of hacking.

This is kind of interesting. To me, it seems convenient to the point of being totally unbelievable that the person who leaked evidence of US war crimes, who the US has been hounding for a decade now, is also dead-to-rights guilty of a charge that justifies the extradition they've been gunning for the whole time.

Not being particularly engaged in the case, or the guy, it seems that this must be obvious to everyone.

What's weird about it is that using a spurious charge as a form of harassment for a political dissident is a really big no-no for a liberal democracy. And that's exactly what this appears to be.

I honestly expected some check or balance to step in at some point and point out that, no matter what you think about this guy, manipulating the legal system in such a blatant manner to produce a predetermined result is corrosive to legitimacy on every scale.

Post reply on HN