Journalism has
traditionally operated under a “publish-and-be-damned” ethic which means that journalists
have a responsibility to publish a story only when they are reasonably sure of the
facts and confident that disclosure would be in the public interest.
However, section 41 of the Secrecy Bill provides that any person who discloses or possesses classified state information is liable to imprisonment for a period not exceeding 5 years except where such disclosure reveals criminal activity.
An investigative journalist can’t investigate crime and corruption without first coming into possession of what might be classified information. So the new bill shifts the risk of damnation back to the pre-publication stage. It’s a case of “investigate-at-your-peril” because if you don’t uncover something criminal, you will have committed a crime yourself.
However, section 41 of the Secrecy Bill provides that any person who discloses or possesses classified state information is liable to imprisonment for a period not exceeding 5 years except where such disclosure reveals criminal activity.
An investigative journalist can’t investigate crime and corruption without first coming into possession of what might be classified information. So the new bill shifts the risk of damnation back to the pre-publication stage. It’s a case of “investigate-at-your-peril” because if you don’t uncover something criminal, you will have committed a crime yourself.
Compare this with the landmark case of New York Times v. United States (1971),in which the Nixon administration sought to ban the publication of classified documents about the Vietnam War secretly copied by Daniel Ellsberg. The US Supreme Court held that only proof that publication "must inevitably, directly, and immediately cause the occurrence of an evil kindred to imperiling the safety of a transport already at sea can support even the issuance of an interim restraining order."
ANC veteran MP Professor Ben
Turok, criticised by his party for taking an initially principled stand against
the Secrecy Bill, voted in favour of the final version of the Bill yesterday saying
that he had been briefed by colleagues on the changes to the bill and was “assured that they are qualitative, not
superficial”.
So said Professor Turok: “Because of the tortuous passage of the bill… I’ve been unable to
track all the changes. This is no excuse, as I have a responsibility to know
what I vote for, but there are limits to how much ground one can cover.”
Seriously, Ben? You didn't even read the final draft before voting
in favour of it? It’s a whole 28 pages. You could digest it faster than a Weetbix.
Props must go to “Super Mario” of
the IFP who discharged himself from hospital to deliver this impassioned plea:
No comments:
Post a Comment