Tabloid phone hacking scandal involving kidnapped girl roils Britain

[mongers]

The Assistant Commissioner just resigned.

http://abcnews.go.com/Entertainment/wireStory?id=14100762

Old news, that's at least 12 hours old. 

Some in the Westminster village wisper that David Cameron might have to resign. :gasp:
 

[jimmy olsen]

The Assistant Commissioner just resigned.

http://abcnews.go.com/Entertainment/wireStory?id=14100762

Old news, that's at least 12 hours old. 

Wasn't mentioned here yet!

How about this then, a computer, phone and records where found in the trash near Rebekah Brooks house.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/media/2011/jul/18/mystery-bag-bin-rebekah-brooks

[Neil]

Hopefully the Guardian gets closed down for picking through people's garbage.

[Drakken]

And now we have a dead man talking on our arms. Police says they ignore the cause of this suicide.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/blogpost/post/sean-hoare-news-of-the-world-whistleblower-found-dead-guardian-reports/2011/07/18/gIQAqQ96LI_blog.html

Sean Hoare, News of the World whistleblower, found dead, Guardian reports

By Melissa Bell

The Guardian reports that Sean Hoare, the former News of the World reporter who first claimed that Andy Coulson knew of phone hacking by his staff, has been found dead at his home. The police told the Guardian that they do not know how Hoare died, but do not believe the cause of death to be suspicious.

Hoare gave an interview to the New York Times in 2010 that bolstered allegations the phone hacking was a widespread and accepted practice at the tabloid. He also said that Coulson encouraged the practice. Hoare was let go from the News of the World for problems related to drinking and drugs.

Hoare had been in contact with the Guardian and the New York Times only last week, stating that the News of the World staff used police technology to track phones.

[Gups]

Hopefully the Guardian gets closed down for picking through people's garbage.

It was the cops.

[Martinus]

Darken, why don't you also post the story about the murdered girl's phone being hacked while you are at posting old stuff?

[mongers]

Some twat has just tried to hit Rupert Murdoch in the face with a 'custard pie'.


edit:
man being held outside committee room by police, appears to have shaving foam on his own face.

[DontSayBanana]

Some twat has just tried to hit Rupert Murdoch in the face with a 'custard pie'.

edit:
man being held outside committee room by police, appears to have shaving foam on his own face.

Sounds like somebody tried to reenact Mavolio Bent's little scene from Making Money.

[Richard Hakluyt]

According to the Guardian the trouble maker was a "UK-uncut activist", or knobhead to use a more colloquial term.

[crazy canuck]

Well journalists will frequently refuse to answer questions under oath in order to "protect their sources", when such priviledge is given little to no legal protection.

And they frequently go to jail for it, as lawbreakers.  I can see journalists deciding to pay the penalty for breaking the law as a matter of rational self-interest.  But that has nothing to do with freedom of the press.

So freedom of the press has nothing to do with the freedom to investigate without fear?  Doesnt that make the freedom to report what they want ring a bit hollow.

Did you read Brazen's post?

The thing that raises a concern in the case is everyone loves to beat up on Murdoch and hail Privacy Rights as being supreme.  But if privacy is a supreme right then how could a free press remain a meaningful institution?  Are we really condemned to live in a world where news rooms are even more reliant on press releases for the "news" because nobody wants to dig for a story for fear of fighting a privacy violation case.

[DontSayBanana]

So freedom of the press has nothing to do with the freedom to investigate without fear?  Doesnt that make the freedom to report what they want ring a bit hollow.

Did you read Brazen's post?

The thing that raises a concern in the case is everyone loves to beat up on Murdoch and hail Privacy Rights as being supreme.  But if privacy is a supreme right then how could a free press remain a meaningful institution?  Are we really condemned to live in a world where news rooms are even more reliant on press releases for the "news" because nobody wants to dig for a story for fear of fighting a privacy violation case.

Because reporting on individuals serves no public interest other than schadenfreude.  An institution should be transparent and be able to be reported on without reprisal because their affairs are matters of public interest.  The biggest problem is that no government I know of has made the distinction between the two concepts yet.

Reporting on private individuals should be restrained.  Murdoch's legal troubles right now are a matter of public interest since his disappearance could and probably would send an enormous mesh of companies into a downward spiral; victims of crime shouldn't be bothered when the only tangible end to the investigation is the exposure of the subject to fresh psychological trauma.

[Razgovory]

So freedom of the press has nothing to do with the freedom to investigate without fear?  Doesnt that make the freedom to report what they want ring a bit hollow.

Did you read Brazen's post?

The thing that raises a concern in the case is everyone loves to beat up on Murdoch and hail Privacy Rights as being supreme.  But if privacy is a supreme right then how could a free press remain a meaningful institution?  Are we really condemned to live in a world where news rooms are even more reliant on press releases for the "news" because nobody wants to dig for a story for fear of fighting a privacy violation case.

Freedom of the Press has to do with the freedom to print what they want.  It does not confer "extra rights", such as the right to lie to the police, or trespass or obstruct a criminal investigation.  A reporter can't break into a military base and film the construction of secret aircraft.  Well he can, but he very well may be prosecuted for it.

[Martinus]

In many European jurisdictions, the press is definitely not at liberty to print anything they want, or even anything true they want. They need to show a public interest or can be sued.

[crazy canuck]

Reporting on private individuals should be restrained.

Just think about your position for a moment.  Are you saying that the press should only report on government actors?  I will give you the benefit of the doubt and assume you do not mean to include private corporations (who are individuals under the law) as people who should be protected by such a ban.  But even then do you really think that a private individual should have a bubble protecting them from the prying eyes of reporters.  What if the person carries on business not as a private company but as sole proprietor and engages in all kinds of nasty business that would be in the pubic interest to report - I dont think you would support a ban on such reporting.

[crazy canuck]

In many European jurisdictions, the press is definitely not at liberty to print anything they want, or even anything true they want. They need to show a public interest or can be sued.

Exactly the situation I wish to avoid.