The D-Notice: A British Way of Censoring the Press(thedissenter.org)
thedissenter.org
The D-Notice: A British Way of Censoring the Press
https://thedissenter.org/very-british-form-of-press-censorship/
88 comments
> 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.
This was a political football during the last US election, since then it's been more thoroughly investigated and the majority of the content has either been proven false, or has yet to be verified as true. There was some truthful information within the dossier, but generally speaking it was mostly hearsay and unverified allegations and not completed when it was leaked. The leaking was clearly politically motivated and it was used as the basis of starting Congressional investigations which ultimately resulted in only minimal parts of the content being verified. There are many people who are politically aligned with the leaker of the dossier that believe the dossier is true because the general thrust of the allegations was true, but the actual specifics were mostly false, and the truth of what did occur mostly was found in the later investigation, which did not corroborate the dossier.
This was a political football during the last US election, since then it's been more thoroughly investigated and the majority of the content has either been proven false, or has yet to be verified as true. There was some truthful information within the dossier, but generally speaking it was mostly hearsay and unverified allegations and not completed when it was leaked. The leaking was clearly politically motivated and it was used as the basis of starting Congressional investigations which ultimately resulted in only minimal parts of the content being verified. There are many people who are politically aligned with the leaker of the dossier that believe the dossier is true because the general thrust of the allegations was true, but the actual specifics were mostly false, and the truth of what did occur mostly was found in the later investigation, which did not corroborate the dossier.
Thanks for the context - I didn't really understand you though - why do you say the actual specifics were mostly false, while also saying the Congress investigation verified some parts and couldn't verify others?
There were a large number of allegations in the dossier. So, pulling numbers out of the air, but... say it was something like 70% of the allegations were false, 10% were verified true, and 20% could not be verified as either true or false.
As I said, the numbers are made up. But I think the general gist is right - mostly false, a bit true, and some that is unknown.
But this is why people say the dossier was discredited - the majority of it was false.
As I said, the numbers are made up. But I think the general gist is right - mostly false, a bit true, and some that is unknown.
But this is why people say the dossier was discredited - the majority of it was false.
According to Bellingcat[1], Igor Danchenko who was Steeler’s primary source was probably being fed information by the GRU.
[1] https://newrepublic.com/article/161913/we-are-bellingcat-spo...
[1] https://newrepublic.com/article/161913/we-are-bellingcat-spo...
It is hard to take unverifiable claims seriously when the verifiable ones turn out to be false.
> it was used as the basis of starting Congressional investigations
This is false and a right-wing talking point. Papadopoulos's bragging launched the investigation.
This is false and a right-wing talking point. Papadopoulos's bragging launched the investigation.
This has been downvoted at the time of writing, but it's quite right: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russia_investigation_origins...
I wasn't in the room when the decision was made, but my understanding from reading both the Steele Dossier and the published Mueller report is that Mueller drew considerably from the Steele Dossier as a way to understand where to consider targeting the investigation early on, and then expanded elsewhere after they had identified that most of it was not actionable intelligence. Mueller's investigation ultimately resulted in several convictions, so where there is smoke there is fire, but in this case the fire was burning oak wood and the smoke smelled like mesquite.
The whole thing was completely fucking wild. Papa was ‘caught’ bragging to an Australian diplomat that was politically connected. The diplomat could have just been making the whole thing up because he either received instruction from Australian security services or because the diplomat in question has a bunch of strong incentives to ingratiate himself to the US permanent government. Have a read of Papa’s book to get an alternative view of what happened. In most realities he is going to deny the encounter so we should be suspicious of his narrative but there was a lot of suspect stuff going on.
After seeing how the US intelligence people acted with the Hunter Biden story I have zero faith they wouldn’t monkey around. To be fair I think a lot of the shade that was thrown on the story was from ex-intelligence people and not current US government employees. However, this whole thing looks like a vast conspiracy. You have ex-intelligence people, some who have plum media jobs signing up to this statement that seems to claim that Hunter Biden laptop is Russian disinformation. But if you carefully review the statement it doesn’t actually make this claim. And if someone produced irrefutable proof that the laptop was genuine then all these people who signed up to this claim could claim they were still right. The actually claim was the laptop had the hallmarks of Russian misinformation. But that is not a very useful claim if you as a voter are trying to assess the probability that the laptop is genuine or not. For example it could have the hallmarks but it could still be like a 95% probability that it is genuine. Of course this claim about hallmarks is not strong enough so when it was reported in the press it was often reported as X ex-intelligence people have confirmed it is Russian disinformation. So what the hell is going on here?
After seeing how the US intelligence people acted with the Hunter Biden story I have zero faith they wouldn’t monkey around. To be fair I think a lot of the shade that was thrown on the story was from ex-intelligence people and not current US government employees. However, this whole thing looks like a vast conspiracy. You have ex-intelligence people, some who have plum media jobs signing up to this statement that seems to claim that Hunter Biden laptop is Russian disinformation. But if you carefully review the statement it doesn’t actually make this claim. And if someone produced irrefutable proof that the laptop was genuine then all these people who signed up to this claim could claim they were still right. The actually claim was the laptop had the hallmarks of Russian misinformation. But that is not a very useful claim if you as a voter are trying to assess the probability that the laptop is genuine or not. For example it could have the hallmarks but it could still be like a 95% probability that it is genuine. Of course this claim about hallmarks is not strong enough so when it was reported in the press it was often reported as X ex-intelligence people have confirmed it is Russian disinformation. So what the hell is going on here?
[deleted]
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.
> 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.
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.
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...
>2. It says the Steele dossier is largely discredited - I wasn't aware of any discrediting, let alone total.
Numerous Steele dossier "sources" have been arrested for lying to the FBI in regards to the dossier, including Igor Danchenko, a primary Steel "source" who is apparently a fall down alcoholic who, among other things, fabricated conversations that never took place.
https://www.axios.com/2021/11/04/steele-dossier-durham-inves...
Numerous Steele dossier "sources" have been arrested for lying to the FBI in regards to the dossier, including Igor Danchenko, a primary Steel "source" who is apparently a fall down alcoholic who, among other things, fabricated conversations that never took place.
https://www.axios.com/2021/11/04/steele-dossier-durham-inves...
> 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.
There are at least two ways to interpret this:
1)If the Steele dossier is legitimate, then the author is propagandizing the issue.
2)If the Steele dossier is discredited (in some circles) propaganda, but you are not aware of the deception, then perhaps it isn't spin. This experience could be a reflection of the information you consume.
In the interest of avoiding inflammatory discussions, I'll leave it to other commentators to discuss the veracity of either side.
There are at least two ways to interpret this:
1)If the Steele dossier is legitimate, then the author is propagandizing the issue.
2)If the Steele dossier is discredited (in some circles) propaganda, but you are not aware of the deception, then perhaps it isn't spin. This experience could be a reflection of the information you consume.
In the interest of avoiding inflammatory discussions, I'll leave it to other commentators to discuss the veracity of either side.
> but you are not aware of the deception, then perhaps it isn't spin
You are quite right that I am lacking complete awareness, so I think it would behoove the author to at least link to something to back up their statement, and without sourcing it does feel like spin.
Similarly, there's a section of the article where the author suggests D-notices were used to suppress a link between Sergei Skripal's alleged handler and the Orbis Intelligence company whose founder wrote the dossier. There is again no souring or backing up this allegation. I didn't understand here either, why the author is using these unsourced points to discuss D Notices
You are quite right that I am lacking complete awareness, so I think it would behoove the author to at least link to something to back up their statement, and without sourcing it does feel like spin.
Similarly, there's a section of the article where the author suggests D-notices were used to suppress a link between Sergei Skripal's alleged handler and the Orbis Intelligence company whose founder wrote the dossier. There is again no souring or backing up this allegation. I didn't understand here either, why the author is using these unsourced points to discuss D Notices
I agree that sources are valuable and important. My preference would be that they are included. However they are rarely cited in a meaningful way, even in mainstream publications.
The beauty of these kinds of discussions is that one could spend about 5-10 minutes searching and come up with a plethora of sources supporting either claim from whichever side you prefer.
From this premise the sources become almost irrelevant. You could examine the source taking a given position on either issue and declare it false. You need only find a contradictory source suitable to your biases.
You could instead reason about the outcome of the accusations leveled in the Steele dossier. If those accusations were truthful, why was action not taken? Again, the partisan biases take hold:
1) Action was not taken because the dossier was fabricated
2) Action was not taken because the accused held political power
Getting back to the larger topic, I ask you: Does censorship enhance your ability to trust the media and discern information, or does it hinder it?
The beauty of these kinds of discussions is that one could spend about 5-10 minutes searching and come up with a plethora of sources supporting either claim from whichever side you prefer.
From this premise the sources become almost irrelevant. You could examine the source taking a given position on either issue and declare it false. You need only find a contradictory source suitable to your biases.
You could instead reason about the outcome of the accusations leveled in the Steele dossier. If those accusations were truthful, why was action not taken? Again, the partisan biases take hold:
1) Action was not taken because the dossier was fabricated
2) Action was not taken because the accused held political power
Getting back to the larger topic, I ask you: Does censorship enhance your ability to trust the media and discern information, or does it hinder it?
Not having access to the names and methods of intelligence agencies doesn't hinder my trust in the media, no, and I can't really establish from this article that much more than that is happening. If anything it boosts my trust, knowing that these publications are considered legitimate enough by the UK government to be on their d-notice distribution list.
That is certainly one way of looking at it. The government confers reputability onto the press. If that is an appropriate role for the state in your view, you need not examine further.
Another perspective might observe that Pravda was similarly considered "legitimate enough" by the USSR.
Which of these best describes the information bubble you found yourself in at the top of the thread?
Another perspective might observe that Pravda was similarly considered "legitimate enough" by the USSR.
Which of these best describes the information bubble you found yourself in at the top of the thread?
I'm not even sure what you're asking, sorry. I don't think you can infer I'm in some bubble, or my head's in the sand, because I don't conclude from this article that we should scrap the official secrets act
[deleted]
> 2. It says the Steele dossier is largely discredited - I wasn't aware of any discrediting, let alone total.
Look at David Shaylers career and how he has subsequently been done over by them, much like Chelsea Manning. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/David_Shayler#MI5_career
Its the military's job to diffuse situations, identify threats on the horizon and use whatever means necessary to deal with them. Once you are dealing with something in a court, the threat has largely gone thanks to corrupt judges.
Spooks are above the law, but just to make sure, its written into law. https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2019/nov/05/mi5-policy-g... https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-54274605
I really dont know why people come to the UK or most other organised country for that matter because entrapment & blackmail is still order of the day with all the security services, some of which you will read about in the press.
Another name for the BBC is https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MI7 those television camera's and journalists get in everywhere, the press is the best form of spying in the world imo!
So when is a D-notice not a D-notice? When its just reverse psychology to weed out some groups of people perhaps?
Look at David Shaylers career and how he has subsequently been done over by them, much like Chelsea Manning. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/David_Shayler#MI5_career
Its the military's job to diffuse situations, identify threats on the horizon and use whatever means necessary to deal with them. Once you are dealing with something in a court, the threat has largely gone thanks to corrupt judges.
Spooks are above the law, but just to make sure, its written into law. https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2019/nov/05/mi5-policy-g... https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-54274605
I really dont know why people come to the UK or most other organised country for that matter because entrapment & blackmail is still order of the day with all the security services, some of which you will read about in the press.
Another name for the BBC is https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MI7 those television camera's and journalists get in everywhere, the press is the best form of spying in the world imo!
So when is a D-notice not a D-notice? When its just reverse psychology to weed out some groups of people perhaps?
The Steele dossier was paid political opposition research, and therefore does not need to be discredited. It is false unless proven true. You could be excused for not knowing this important detail if you get your news from US "journalists."
Yeah, I'm getting bad vibes about this piece too. I can't dismiss it but there are some pretty serious claims deserving solid sources.
Couldn't help but click on another article from the page "Uncovering CIA-Funded Experiments On Children In Europe During The Cold War - Was the CIA involved in sponsoring West German pedophilic foster homes overseen by the Social Democratic Party?" all with the same problems of missing sources or sources that don't reference the claims.
Even though I was open to it, am gonna call BS.
Couldn't help but click on another article from the page "Uncovering CIA-Funded Experiments On Children In Europe During The Cold War - Was the CIA involved in sponsoring West German pedophilic foster homes overseen by the Social Democratic Party?" all with the same problems of missing sources or sources that don't reference the claims.
Even though I was open to it, am gonna call BS.
I remember when the Steele dossier was published by Buzzfeed. They basically said, “We can’t establish if it’s true, and it probably isnt. But it’s been talked about enough you might as well read the darn thing.”
I don’t know if it’s been discredited, as it was never “credited” in the first place.
I don’t know if it’s been discredited, as it was never “credited” in the first place.
>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.
If you aren't aware of it, that's on you. Frankly it amazes me that people still think it's real.
Maybe, but I am not including it in any of my articles, so it's not really on me to know everything about it.
Another user provided an NYT link which suggested it was real, but only indicative and not necessarily factual.
https://archive.ph/2fHH5
Another user provided an NYT link which suggested it was real, but only indicative and not necessarily factual.
https://archive.ph/2fHH5
The dossier was real (as in it was written by who it said it was written by), it’s just that most of the content in it was sourced from people who were either lying or fed false information.
How can a document be "real" if it's full of "not necessarily factual" claims?
It’s a real dossier full of hearsay, lies, calumny, etc. Steele was paid to assemble it, by a lawyer working for Hillary Clinton no less, for the express purpose of smearing Trump in the hopes that something would stick.
https://archive.ph/2fHH5#selection-519.0-523.134
> Mr. Trump and his supporters have long sought to use the flaws of the dossier to discredit the investigation into Russian interference in the 2016 presidential election — and the nature of numerous links between Russia and the Trump campaign — as a “hoax." But the available evidence indicates that the dossier was largely tangential to the Russia investigation. Here is a look at the facts.
> The F.B.I. launched the investigation in July 2016, and a special counsel, Robert S. Mueller III, eventually took over. His March 2019 report detailed “numerous links between the Russian government and the Trump campaign” and established that “the Russian government perceived it would benefit from a Trump presidency and worked to secure that outcome, and that the campaign expected it would benefit electorally from information stolen and released through Russian efforts.”
> Beyond its narrow role in facilitating the F.B.I.’s wiretap of Mr. Page, the dossier’s publication had the broader consequence of amplifying an atmosphere of suspicion about Mr. Trump.
> Still, the dossier did not create this atmosphere of suspicion. Mr. Trump’s relationship with Russia had been a topic of significant discussion dating back to the campaign, including before the first report that Russia had hacked Democrats and before Mr. Steele drafted his reports and gave some to reporters.
> Among the reasons: Mr. Trump had said flattering things about Russian President Vladimir V. Putin, kept bringing on advisers with ties to Russia, had financial ties to Russia, publicly encouraged Russia to hack Mrs. Clinton, and at his nominating convention, the party dropped a plank that called for arming Ukraine against Russian-backed rebels. In March 2017, the F.B.I. publicly acknowledged that it was investigating links between Russia and Trump campaign associates.
> Mr. Trump and his supporters have long sought to use the flaws of the dossier to discredit the investigation into Russian interference in the 2016 presidential election — and the nature of numerous links between Russia and the Trump campaign — as a “hoax." But the available evidence indicates that the dossier was largely tangential to the Russia investigation. Here is a look at the facts.
> The F.B.I. launched the investigation in July 2016, and a special counsel, Robert S. Mueller III, eventually took over. His March 2019 report detailed “numerous links between the Russian government and the Trump campaign” and established that “the Russian government perceived it would benefit from a Trump presidency and worked to secure that outcome, and that the campaign expected it would benefit electorally from information stolen and released through Russian efforts.”
> Beyond its narrow role in facilitating the F.B.I.’s wiretap of Mr. Page, the dossier’s publication had the broader consequence of amplifying an atmosphere of suspicion about Mr. Trump.
> Still, the dossier did not create this atmosphere of suspicion. Mr. Trump’s relationship with Russia had been a topic of significant discussion dating back to the campaign, including before the first report that Russia had hacked Democrats and before Mr. Steele drafted his reports and gave some to reporters.
> Among the reasons: Mr. Trump had said flattering things about Russian President Vladimir V. Putin, kept bringing on advisers with ties to Russia, had financial ties to Russia, publicly encouraged Russia to hack Mrs. Clinton, and at his nominating convention, the party dropped a plank that called for arming Ukraine against Russian-backed rebels. In March 2017, the F.B.I. publicly acknowledged that it was investigating links between Russia and Trump campaign associates.
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."
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?
“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?
You check into things in accordance to the credibility of the person making the claims.
It would not take long to see that Biden doesn't rape babies. Hell, a lot of what was in the Dossier was not looked into because they just dismissed it out of hand.
This kind of casual dismissal and reductio ad absurdum you're engaging in is an attempt to distract from the very real crimes very real people were very really arrested for doing regarding things described in the document.
It would not take long to see that Biden doesn't rape babies. Hell, a lot of what was in the Dossier was not looked into because they just dismissed it out of hand.
This kind of casual dismissal and reductio ad absurdum you're engaging in is an attempt to distract from the very real crimes very real people were very really arrested for doing regarding things described in the document.
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.
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.
The claim is
> It says the UK media largely ignored the Snowden leaks due to a D-Notice
The Guardian might have been "crucified" for their reporting, but they did report on it.
> It says the UK media largely ignored the Snowden leaks due to a D-Notice
The Guardian might have been "crucified" for their reporting, but they did report on it.
> > It says the UK media largely ignored the Snowden leaks due to a D-Notice
> The Guardian might have been "crucified" for their reporting, but they did report on it.
a few things;
1) "largely ignored" does not mean universally ignored, 1 outlet reporting on it does not mean that the "large majority" of british media didn't ignore the leaks.
2) Guardian didn't ignore the d-notice either, they made a choice to die on that hill, and they were dragged through the coals for it. D-Notices' are supposedly voluntary, otherwise there would be more outrage.
3) this serves as a warning to the other outlets.
4) the guardian was already in reporting and disseminating the contents directly with Snowden before the d-notice was issued.
> The Guardian might have been "crucified" for their reporting, but they did report on it.
a few things;
1) "largely ignored" does not mean universally ignored, 1 outlet reporting on it does not mean that the "large majority" of british media didn't ignore the leaks.
2) Guardian didn't ignore the d-notice either, they made a choice to die on that hill, and they were dragged through the coals for it. D-Notices' are supposedly voluntary, otherwise there would be more outrage.
3) this serves as a warning to the other outlets.
4) the guardian was already in reporting and disseminating the contents directly with Snowden before the d-notice was issued.
So you agree that saying the UK media largely ignored the Snowden story is incorrect? As mentioned The Guardian was one of the principle outlets of the disclosures led by Ewen MacAskill.
The Guardian ignored the D-Notices and survives to this day - both facts undermine the point of the article that the system breaks independent British journalism.
This article stinks, is there any way to downvote it any further?
The Guardian ignored the D-Notices and survives to this day - both facts undermine the point of the article that the system breaks independent British journalism.
This article stinks, is there any way to downvote it any further?
Police raids are usually enough to dissuade most people. That might be the reason why they were ignored.
D-notices certainly aren't the only way the British censors the press. They famously sent agents to the headquarters of The Guardian and forced them to physically destroy the Snowden hard drives in the basement in front of them.
https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2014/jan/31/footage-rele...
https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2014/jan/31/footage-rele...
Yes. The reason for this is that the Official Secrets Act makes it illegal for anyone to keep or share anything that is "official information" under it except for "official purposes" i.e. for your government job on a government computer. There is no opt out for journalism and it applies regardless of whether you "sign" it or not. IANAL, but my understanding is the sole thing you can do legally if handed or finding classified documents is to take them to a police station and hand them over.
I would guess that the UK Gov knew full well that destroying these documents in the UK would not stop reporting, but doing nothing might set a precedent that they're not keen on.
I would guess that the UK Gov knew full well that destroying these documents in the UK would not stop reporting, but doing nothing might set a precedent that they're not keen on.
I would reply to a sibling comment, but I believe this ought to be top level. I believe the author is conflating "D-Notices may be used to ask the press to self-censor" versus "'the man' is censoring Assange". So far as I am aware, nothing in the Assange trial would actually warrant a D-Notice, and if sensitive information were to be presented to the court it would be done in closed session anyway, since they at least theoretically have that option (they'd have to convince the judge of the need for this, if I understand correctly).
Why is the Assange extradition case not a good time to mention D-notices?
That's not quite what I said. I said the article's insinuation that D-Notices are some mysterious gag order and are being used as part of the UK Government's campaign of terror on Assange is wrong. I might be reading too much into the implications, but I don't think I am, feel free to disagree.
What D-Notices are is effectively a polite request not to publish certain sensitive information. Editors at newspapers can decide whether or not to comply with the request. Have a look here: https://www.dsma.uk/how-the-system-works/ and notice the explicit "DSMA notices have no legal standing". The very idea that this is a secret censorship conspiracy is laughable.
I think there is an interesting question arising from the Assange case as to who can claim to be a journalist and what protections this provides, but I do not think D-Notices fit anywhere in this. They're not even a law.
What D-Notices are is effectively a polite request not to publish certain sensitive information. Editors at newspapers can decide whether or not to comply with the request. Have a look here: https://www.dsma.uk/how-the-system-works/ and notice the explicit "DSMA notices have no legal standing". The very idea that this is a secret censorship conspiracy is laughable.
I think there is an interesting question arising from the Assange case as to who can claim to be a journalist and what protections this provides, but I do not think D-Notices fit anywhere in this. They're not even a law.
This shows up in the sci-fi/horror film Lifeforce. "Gentlemen, that last remark is not for publication. This is a D-notice situation."
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.
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.
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 “hacking” charges that the key witness now admitted lying about? [2]).
I really do think somebody would have to be either hopelessly, desperately naive or deliberately lying to themselves to believe Assange could receive a fair trial in the US, and I don’t think it’s reasonable to assert that the US has any kind of jurisdiction over him.
1. https://www.theverge.com/2021/9/27/22696436/cia-kidnap-julia...
2. https://stundin.is/grein/13627/
I really do think somebody would have to be either hopelessly, desperately naive or deliberately lying to themselves to believe Assange could receive a fair trial in the US, and I don’t think it’s reasonable to assert that the US has any kind of jurisdiction over him.
1. https://www.theverge.com/2021/9/27/22696436/cia-kidnap-julia...
2. https://stundin.is/grein/13627/
> 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 squarely, dead-to-rights illegal that also happens to piss off the government is that they are within their rights to put you away for doing it.
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.
Probably because the most noteworthy accomplishment of that higher cause seems to be 'spending the next decade being a shill for the Kremlin' and 'helping Trump win 2016'. Sorry, but not sorry - I can't say I have an iota of sympathy for the architects of either.
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 squarely, dead-to-rights illegal that also happens to piss off the government is that they are within their rights to put you away for doing it.
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.
Probably because the most noteworthy accomplishment of that higher cause seems to be 'spending the next decade being a shill for the Kremlin' and 'helping Trump win 2016'. Sorry, but not sorry - I can't say I have an iota of sympathy for the architects of either.
> 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.
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.
I don't know if the allegations are true. I just think that they are very serious, if they are.
Fortunately, we have a process, called a trial, that can determine whether or not they are.
Fortunately, we have a process, called a trial, that can determine whether or not they are.
You don't believe, and in fact nobody believes, that the exclusive reason for charging Assange with the hacking charges is that he's a hacker. It's obvious to everybody that he is being charged because of legitimate political speech, and this was just what they felt they could 'get him for'. Whether or not he is guilty, that means that the legal system is being used for political ends.
What's wild to me is that so many people are OK with this. Politically motivated prosecution is not normal in a democracy.
What's wild to me is that so many people are OK with this. Politically motivated prosecution is not normal in a democracy.
> Politically motivated prosecution is not normal in a democracy.
Yeah, but he helped trump get elected so he doesn't deserve human rights.
(/s; but people are genuinely making this argument)
Yeah, but he helped trump get elected so he doesn't deserve human rights.
(/s; but people are genuinely making this argument)
I'm sorry, being put on trial is a violation of your human rights?
This is exactly what I'm talking about. Everyone else has to deal with the consequences of their actions, but when the same rules are applied to Assange, it is somehow a cruel and unusual outrage, and he is a saint that we've already determined could have done no wrong.
This is exactly what I'm talking about. Everyone else has to deal with the consequences of their actions, but when the same rules are applied to Assange, it is somehow a cruel and unusual outrage, and he is a saint that we've already determined could have done no wrong.
Journalists with sources that leak classified information are not unusual and they almost never go to jail for it or get hounded for it to this extent.
If the same rules were, as you say, being applied to Assange, he would have been freed a long time ago.
Hard to see where you're coming from. Trials aren't the only stage at which accused people can be released.
If the same rules were, as you say, being applied to Assange, he would have been freed a long time ago.
Hard to see where you're coming from. Trials aren't the only stage at which accused people can be released.
He's not indicted for broadcasting classified information, he's indicted for hacking. For helping get access to classified information.
It's the difference between a journalist spending a week in the jungle with a group of partisans, and a journalist spending a week in the jungle shooting guns at convoys and blowing up rail lines with a group of partisans. The former's a journalist, the latter's a guerrilla.
If the allegations are correct, Assange is closer to the latter. If they aren't, he's closer to the former. Right now, he's doing his best to make sure we'll never know, because the latter carries serious consequences.
It's the difference between a journalist spending a week in the jungle with a group of partisans, and a journalist spending a week in the jungle shooting guns at convoys and blowing up rail lines with a group of partisans. The former's a journalist, the latter's a guerrilla.
If the allegations are correct, Assange is closer to the latter. If they aren't, he's closer to the former. Right now, he's doing his best to make sure we'll never know, because the latter carries serious consequences.
Wrong. Counts 9 to 17 of his indictment are for "Disclosure of Nation Defense Information". He IS indicted for broadcasting classified information.
There is also 1 count of "Conspiracy to Commit Computer Intrusion" which is minor compared to the 17 other indictments. It related to him trying to crack offline a password hash to let Manning log in as a different user. Which is assisting someone who does the actual collection of information.
The remaining indictments are for "Conspiracy to Receive" NDI or for obtaining it.
In other words he was embedded with the partisans and when asked to pass a box of ammo, did so. The hacking count can lead to 5 years in prison with possible parole. It's a tortured interpretation to suggest he hacked/blew up rail lines.
The rest, the REAL reason to pursue someone internationally for a decade for extraterritorial acts is for his journalistic function. To make an example. Otherwise this case would have been dropped.
https://www.justsecurity.org/wp-content/uploads/2019/05/Assa...
Have you watched Collateral Murder? To see that and think justice would be served by burying it would be like watching The Running Man and rooting for the game show host. Again, hard to understand where you're coming from.
There is also 1 count of "Conspiracy to Commit Computer Intrusion" which is minor compared to the 17 other indictments. It related to him trying to crack offline a password hash to let Manning log in as a different user. Which is assisting someone who does the actual collection of information.
The remaining indictments are for "Conspiracy to Receive" NDI or for obtaining it.
In other words he was embedded with the partisans and when asked to pass a box of ammo, did so. The hacking count can lead to 5 years in prison with possible parole. It's a tortured interpretation to suggest he hacked/blew up rail lines.
The rest, the REAL reason to pursue someone internationally for a decade for extraterritorial acts is for his journalistic function. To make an example. Otherwise this case would have been dropped.
https://www.justsecurity.org/wp-content/uploads/2019/05/Assa...
Have you watched Collateral Murder? To see that and think justice would be served by burying it would be like watching The Running Man and rooting for the game show host. Again, hard to understand where you're coming from.
> being put on trial is a violation of your human rights?
Oh, certainly not. A fair trial, however, is probably impossible.
However, what I usually comment on is that there is a large enough corpus of evidence to indicate that he's being tortured.
Regardless of everything else I believe about the case: his human rights are certainly being suspended for now; if I ever talk about that then people are quick to point out that he assisted in the rise to power of Trump; as if that invalidates his human rights.
Regardless of what you believe (IE: I'm not happy about Trump either) you shouldn't be so quick to repeal peoples rights, and that's what people are doing, and that's what I'm commenting on.
https://www.scmp.com/comment/opinion/article/3160861/torturi...
I could go on-and-on about how he was hounded and character assassinated, but you wouldn't believe me because thats the very nature of character assassination.
I would like him to stand trial, but I suspect it cannot be a fair trial. Sham trials are very common, I wouldn't consider them to be an indicator that your human rights are not being eroded.
If you're interested in learning more about "unfair"/human rights abusing/unjust trials; Amnesty international has a few: https://www.amnesty.org/en/topic/unfair-trials/
Oh, certainly not. A fair trial, however, is probably impossible.
However, what I usually comment on is that there is a large enough corpus of evidence to indicate that he's being tortured.
Regardless of everything else I believe about the case: his human rights are certainly being suspended for now; if I ever talk about that then people are quick to point out that he assisted in the rise to power of Trump; as if that invalidates his human rights.
Regardless of what you believe (IE: I'm not happy about Trump either) you shouldn't be so quick to repeal peoples rights, and that's what people are doing, and that's what I'm commenting on.
https://www.scmp.com/comment/opinion/article/3160861/torturi...
I could go on-and-on about how he was hounded and character assassinated, but you wouldn't believe me because thats the very nature of character assassination.
I would like him to stand trial, but I suspect it cannot be a fair trial. Sham trials are very common, I wouldn't consider them to be an indicator that your human rights are not being eroded.
If you're interested in learning more about "unfair"/human rights abusing/unjust trials; Amnesty international has a few: https://www.amnesty.org/en/topic/unfair-trials/
Sometimes. I personally (personal opinion) feel he would have a hard time getting a fair trial.
> called a trial, that can determine whether or not they are.
Oh sweet summer child, enjoy the bliss till it lasts. Once you open your eyes it will never come back.
Oh sweet summer child, enjoy the bliss till it lasts. Once you open your eyes it will never come back.
So, is the entirety of the US legal system illegitimate, or just the particular parts that will affect your hero?
Are you throwing the whole concept of trials out with the bathwater, or is Assange just special, and the rules don't apply to him?
The US legal system has problems, in terms of which cases it chooses not to pursue, and in terms of the deficiencies of public defenders, and long sentences. But these are problems that affect ~everyone else going through it a lot more than they will affect this golden boy.
Are you throwing the whole concept of trials out with the bathwater, or is Assange just special, and the rules don't apply to him?
The US legal system has problems, in terms of which cases it chooses not to pursue, and in terms of the deficiencies of public defenders, and long sentences. But these are problems that affect ~everyone else going through it a lot more than they will affect this golden boy.
Most systems are legitimate for 99.9% of the cases.
And then there are exceptions. Yes, Assange is just special, special rules apply.
If you're going to deny that, I guess, as GP says, enjoy the bliss till it lasts.
And then there are exceptions. Yes, Assange is just special, special rules apply.
If you're going to deny that, I guess, as GP says, enjoy the bliss till it lasts.
I guess the thing that weirds me out about this is not that 'special rules' are applying: if you look at history, they often do. Rather, it's just such a mistake. We're moving in a multipolar world where the US's preeminence is absolutely and explicitly dependent on its position in a 'rules based global order', as the leader of a set of democracies that champion the rule of law. We're also living through an unprecedented era of domestic disillusionment about the rule of law, its enforcement, fairness, and consistency. The US needs its allies more than ever, but it's also leaning on them to do things (rendition, extradition) that are both domestically unpopular and broadly inconsistent with their laws.
I think when historians look back at this era, from the second gulf war on, they'll see it as an era where the US essentially squandered an amazing soft-power position by ridiculously clumsy, arrogant, and petty behavior. And it's being enabled by group think. It's obvious from an outside perspective that all this kind of thing does is undermines the US at home and abroad, and gives ammunition to the Chinese or Russian state line that basically the US are a bunch of hypocrites, and the rules based global order is a sham, or gives ammunition to the left and right of american domestic politics to say that DC is a swamp, for literally no strategic gain. I mean, who really cares about Assange? I certainly don't. I do care about the ability of journalists to do their work without fear of persecution, and even if people don't care about that, they should care about the raw strategic incompetence of what the US is trying to do here.
I think when historians look back at this era, from the second gulf war on, they'll see it as an era where the US essentially squandered an amazing soft-power position by ridiculously clumsy, arrogant, and petty behavior. And it's being enabled by group think. It's obvious from an outside perspective that all this kind of thing does is undermines the US at home and abroad, and gives ammunition to the Chinese or Russian state line that basically the US are a bunch of hypocrites, and the rules based global order is a sham, or gives ammunition to the left and right of american domestic politics to say that DC is a swamp, for literally no strategic gain. I mean, who really cares about Assange? I certainly don't. I do care about the ability of journalists to do their work without fear of persecution, and even if people don't care about that, they should care about the raw strategic incompetence of what the US is trying to do here.
> 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?
Who, precisely, are you referring to here?
People like the sibling posters. Plenty of them on every thread that mentions Assange.
So, a tautological, non-quantitative categorization: only the subset, of unknown size, that are like this?
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.
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 :)
Perhaps your highlighting an obvious fact is itself evidence that you do in fact have an opinion and did share it while saying otherwise, possibly unconsciously.
Of course there's nothing new about this censorship, except widerspread knowledge of it. The D-Notice began in 1912. [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/DSMA-Notice]
Just to put this window Mr.Overton left us where it belongs, it is a criminal offence in Britain to say anything deemed homophobic even within the confines of your own domicile even to your own family members.
Law described: https://www.christian.org.uk/news/views-expressed-in-private...
Law passed: https://www.gov.scot/news/hate-crime-bill-passed/
Law described: https://www.christian.org.uk/news/views-expressed-in-private...
Law passed: https://www.gov.scot/news/hate-crime-bill-passed/
Kit klarenberg is a Russian government “journalist”. So that explains the pro trump spin and snide fury at guardian journos or bbc journos.
Sorry for not adding up to the discussion, but I can't help https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=B9tzoGFszog
One of the articles linked criticises the UK for spreading misinformation about an upcoming Russian invasion of Ukraine, just a few days before it actually happened.
https://thedissenter.org/british-officials-launder-us-intel-...
https://thedissenter.org/british-officials-launder-us-intel-...
This entire site is full of poorly sourced conspiratorial garbage.
Pity as it might hurt Assange's cause.
Pity as it might hurt Assange's cause.
Should I read anything sinister into the complete lack of comments (after one hour, as I write this) on this article?
D-Notices aren't quite as obscure as the article makes out. I've known they existed for many years, I'm not quite sure why but there's no particular reason I'd know about them. I'm not a journalist and never was.
The Official Secrets Act is probably bad law, it's one of the many places where the USA has superior laws that are much better at keeping bad government in check. The various attempts to expand censorship in the UK are also very bad, in my view. The D-Notice system is difficult to really get worked up about because, as this exposé makes clear, it's:
a. Voluntary.
b. Sometimes ignored, even by major outlets like the Guardian.
c. Largely made up of journalists themselves.
d. So shadowy that they publish photos of themselves and upload meeting notes to government websites.
e. Apparently very tightly concerned with stuff like publishing the names of spies, soldiers, troop movements, etc. The classical sorts of information that has a very direct and obvious reason for being kept out of the press.
The article tries to build a case that it's being used in over-broad ways like with Assange, but honestly I don't buy it. The media doesn't need some shadowy committee to stop it covering the Assange story properly. At some point it became received wisdom in media circles to hate him and journalists need no incentive to bury stories if they find them inconvenient. The Guardian in particular has a long running and well documented vendetta against Assange. You'd see the same approach if D-Notices existed or not.
The Official Secrets Act is probably bad law, it's one of the many places where the USA has superior laws that are much better at keeping bad government in check. The various attempts to expand censorship in the UK are also very bad, in my view. The D-Notice system is difficult to really get worked up about because, as this exposé makes clear, it's:
a. Voluntary.
b. Sometimes ignored, even by major outlets like the Guardian.
c. Largely made up of journalists themselves.
d. So shadowy that they publish photos of themselves and upload meeting notes to government websites.
e. Apparently very tightly concerned with stuff like publishing the names of spies, soldiers, troop movements, etc. The classical sorts of information that has a very direct and obvious reason for being kept out of the press.
The article tries to build a case that it's being used in over-broad ways like with Assange, but honestly I don't buy it. The media doesn't need some shadowy committee to stop it covering the Assange story properly. At some point it became received wisdom in media circles to hate him and journalists need no incentive to bury stories if they find them inconvenient. The Guardian in particular has a long running and well documented vendetta against Assange. You'd see the same approach if D-Notices existed or not.
Yes there's a lot of looseness. Considering the history of the
D-notice in wartime (1914-18 and 1938-45), when the stakes were high,
it's a typical British implementation of "strong flexibility". The
problem may actually be over-compliance. The days of Woodward and
Bernstein have given way to journalists whose idea of ambitiously
advancing their careers involves not offending anyone and running to
mummy to ask permission at every juncture - not of government but
their corporate/advertising lords.
Kit klarenberg the author of this sneaky article that draws readers in with somewhat reasonable start then descends into nonsense about Russian government operations like trump and skripal, works or worked for the Russian government’s self declared “information weapon” (rt)
>D-Notices aren't quite as obscure as the article makes out.
I think that puts it very mildly. There was a gigantic public scandal as far back as 1967 about D-notices.
I think that puts it very mildly. There was a gigantic public scandal as far back as 1967 about D-notices.
Tinker Tailor Soldier Spy (the TV show) has a character complaining about them
Perhaps no one has anything to say about it. If you're eager for an opinion: I was already familiar with D-Notices—they've been around in some form since 1912—and I think they're a necessary tool to stop the UK press publishing information they shouldn't publish. I don't believe they are egregiously abused although there is scope for abuse and they have been abused in the past. Super-injunctions are more worrying to me because there is even less democratic accountability.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Super-injunctions_in_English_l...
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Super-injunctions_in_English_l...
Personally, I think there is a level of fatigue that has set in. Post 9/11 Americans had a lot of their innocence taken away from them as various leaks ( including Assange's, Snowden's and others' ). Note that I say Americans, because it is genuinely difficult for me to gauge it elsewhere ( and quite frankly, I might be wrong about US too ).
I could offer anecdotes, but my interactions with my social circles more and more indicate 'well, duh' to stories like this and not post-1981 book reading horror of realization that humans can be quite horrible to one another. And, well, since it is clear now that some information is suppressed and some is heavily promoted -- the distrust of general populace appears to be quite high.
And this is yet another reason why I constantly argue against the temptations of censorship. That said, this is the path we are on.
So to answer your question. No, I don't think it is sinister at all. It is just the current state of affairs. Some subjects are more risky than others.
I could offer anecdotes, but my interactions with my social circles more and more indicate 'well, duh' to stories like this and not post-1981 book reading horror of realization that humans can be quite horrible to one another. And, well, since it is clear now that some information is suppressed and some is heavily promoted -- the distrust of general populace appears to be quite high.
And this is yet another reason why I constantly argue against the temptations of censorship. That said, this is the path we are on.
So to answer your question. No, I don't think it is sinister at all. It is just the current state of affairs. Some subjects are more risky than others.
No.
It doesn't help that it struck me as drawn-out and disjointed.
Worse - I never got the sense that the public would much care if the facts that the DMSA is keeping secret could be freely published in Britain. Nor (post-Snowden, and having read about some of America's secret gag orders) that the UK is up to anything all that bad (by the modern-day western world's very low standards).
It doesn't help that it struck me as drawn-out and disjointed.
Worse - I never got the sense that the public would much care if the facts that the DMSA is keeping secret could be freely published in Britain. Nor (post-Snowden, and having read about some of America's secret gag orders) that the UK is up to anything all that bad (by the modern-day western world's very low standards).
No. I'm being paid off by a different guy
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 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.
Edit to add 3. It says that a D Notice was used to suppress a link between Sergei Skirpal's handler and Orbis Intelligence, while the only sources provided negate that