Send a Tweet
Most Popular Choices
Share on Facebook Share on Twitter Share on LinkedIn Share on Reddit Tell A Friend Printer Friendly Page Save As Favorite View Favorites
OpEdNews Op Eds

In Landmark Ruling, UK Court Affirms "Journalism Isn't Terrorism"

By       Message Common Dreams       (Page 1 of 1 pages)     Permalink    (# of views)   2 comments

Related Topic(s): ; ; ; ; , Add Tags
Add to My Group(s)

Must Read 1   Valuable 1  
View Ratings | Rate It

opednews.com Headlined to H3 1/20/16

Author 90876

See original here

- Advertisement -
Court rules in favor of David Miranda, detained for nine hours at Heathrow airport in 2013 while transporting journalist documents on NSA revelations
By Nadia Prupis, staff writer
- Advertisement -

(Image by (Elza Fiuza / Agencia Brasil))   Details   DMCA

In a landmark ruling, a British appeals court on Tuesday found that the UK's terrorism law violates the European Convention on Human Rights -- a decision that came in the case of David Miranda, who was detained and searched at London's Heathrow airport in 2013 while carrying encrypted documents related to U.S. whistleblower Edward Snowden.

- Advertisement -

The ruling means government ministers will have to reevaluate a controversial provision in the Terrorism Act, known as Section 7, which gives law enforcement officers the power to stop, question, detain, and search people in airports and certain other transit areas, whether or not they are suspected of terrorism.

Individuals who refuse to answer questions or hand over any requested documents or information may be fined, imprisoned up to four months, or both.

"If journalists and their sources can have no expectation of confidentiality, they may decide against providing information on sensitive matters of public interest," the ruling states. "The court of appeal ruling rejects the broad definition of terrorism advanced by government lawyers. The correct legal definition of terrorism, the court of appeal has now ruled, requires some intention to cause a serious threat to public safety such as endangering life."

The decision was handed down by Lord Dyson, the court's most senior judge. "The stop power, if used in respect of journalistic information or material is incompatible with article 10 [freedom of expression] of the [European convention on human rights] because it is not 'prescribed by law'," Dyson said.

Miranda, who is the partner of journalist Glenn Greenwald, was interrogated for nine hours at Heathrow in August 2013 while transporting documents to Greenwald from journalist Laura Poitras, both of whom were reporting on the National Security Agency's (NSA) mass surveillance program. Miranda attempted last year to challenge his detention, but the High Court in London ruled that police had been justified in stopping and searching him.

The government argued at the time that Miranda met the definition of a terrorist because he was carrying documents that "would endanger people's lives" if released.

- Advertisement -

Tuesday's decision overturns at least part of that ruling.

On Twitter, Miranda said he was "Thrilled with the court ruling! My purpose was to show U.K.'s terrorism law violates press freedoms. And journalism isn't 'terrorism.' We won!"

Kate Goold, who represents Miranda, welcomed the decision, stating, "Today's ruling emphasizes the importance of interpreting terrorism with its ordinary natural meaning to ensure that legitimate public interest journalism is not stifled through the use of draconian powers because of the fear of remote consequences. The notion of a journalist becoming an 'accidental terrorist' has been whole-heartedly rejected. We welcome this court's principled and decisive ruling that Schedule 7 needs to come in line with other legislation to ensure that the seizure of journalistic material is protected by judicial safeguards."

Goold's colleague John Halford added, "In short, this Court has decided that taking effective action against terrorism involves using instruments that are fit for purpose, rather than those that are so blunt that they inevitably damage the interests of democratic societies based on free speech and the journalists that are their champions."

 

- Advertisement -

Must Read 1   Valuable 1  
View Ratings | Rate It

opednews.com

commondreams.org is a progressive publisher

Common Dreams Social Media Pages: Facebook page url on login Profile not filled in       Twitter page url on login Profile not filled in       Linkedin page url on login Profile not filled in       Instagram page url on login Profile not filled in

Go To Commenting
The views expressed herein are the sole responsibility of the author and do not necessarily reflect those of this website or its editors.
Writers Guidelines
Contact AuthorContact Author Contact EditorContact Editor Author PageView Authors' Articles
Support OpEdNews

OpEdNews depends upon can't survive without your help.

If you value this article and the work of OpEdNews, please either Donate or Purchase a premium membership.

STAY IN THE KNOW
If you've enjoyed this, sign up for our daily or weekly newsletter to get lots of great progressive content.
Daily Weekly     OpEdNews Newsletter
Name
Email
   (Opens new browser window)
 

Most Popular Articles by this Author:     (View All Most Popular Articles by this Author)

Drone Papers: Leaked Military Documents Expose US "Assassination Complex"

WH Stenographer Who Resigned in Protest: Trump's "Not Even Trying to Tell the Truth"

'Smoking Gun': White House Finally Admits Bannon and Kobach Were Racist Minds Behind Scheme to Rig 2020 Census

Food Lobby Colossus Sues Vermont over GMO 'Right to Know'

Here Are the 19 Senate Democrats Still Not Committed to Defending Net Neutrality

Bernie Sanders May Run for President in 2016