This needs etching on a large steel sheet and nailgunning to the door of Parliament:
December 2, 2013
OPEN LETTER TO THE HOUSE OF COMMONS HOME AFFAIRS COMMITTEE:
As news organizations, editors, and journalists who often report on government actions
that officials seek to keep secret, we write to the Committee on the eve of the forthcoming
appearance of Guardian editor Alan Rusbridger to express our grave concern over pointed calls
by those in authority for censorship of The Guardian and criminal prosecution of its journalists in
the name of national security. Such sanctions, and the chilling impact created by even the threat
to impose them, undermine the independence and integrity of the press that are essential for
democracy to function.
At the height of the Vietnam War in 1971 the U.S. Supreme Court refused the request of
President Nixon to enjoin a newspaper from publishing a classified Defense Department report
on the war that had been leaked to a reporter. In rejecting censorship of true, newsworthy
information as fundamentally inconsistent with a free press and a free people, Justice Hugo
Black cautioned that “[t]he word ‘security’ is a broad, vague generality” that should not be
invoked to abrogate the right of the press to educate citizens. “The guarding of military and
diplomatic secrets at the expense of informed representative government provides no real
security for our Republic.”
Recent disclosures concerning secret activities of GCHQ and the U.S. National Security
Agency may have embarrassed or angered political leaders, but they have educated the public on
critically important matters and sparked a valuable global debate over the proper exercise of the
vast surveillance powers that now exist. It is the responsibility of journalists to provide the type
of accurate and in-depth news reports published by The Guardian and others that have informed
the public and framed important, unresolved issues concerning the balance between security and
privacy. Vigorous news coverage and the debate it fosters advance the public interest.
It is thus unwise and counterproductive to react to the reporting on disclosures from
Edward Snowden by reflexively invoking security concerns to silence the press or to accuse a
news organization of aiding terrorists simply by providing citizens with information they need to
know. Published reports in The Guardian on the Snowden disclosures have been prepared with
the care and sensitivity to security concerns that editors have long demonstrated. We understand
that both GCHQ and the NSA were provided an opportunity, in advance of publication, to
comment and alert the journalists to particular security concerns. The reporting has been both
responsible and, given the intense displeasure of those in power, courageous.
To the rest of the world, it appears that press freedom itself is under attack in Britain
today. British politicians are publicly calling for the criminal prosecution of The Guardian for
having published true, accurate, and newsworthy information. A Scotland Yard investigation
has been launched. “D notices” have been threatened. And the Prime Minister has raised the
prospect of seeking an injunction prohibiting The Guardian from publishing any further
intelligence revelations. These aggressive actions intimidate journalists and their sources. They
chill reporting on issues of national security and on the conduct of government more generally.
In our Internet-connected world, the impact of actions in Britain extends far beyond the
United Kingdom. U.N. Special Rapporteur Frank La Rue rightly expressed alarm that these
actions do more than damage Britain’s international reputation as a defender of press freedom;
they “provide encouragement to non-democratic regimes to justify their own repressive actions.”
They undermine globally the essential independence of the press.
We therefore urge the Committee to use the occasion of Mr. Rusbridger’s appearance to
reaffirm Britain’s commitment to a vigorous, free, and independent press. It is important to
acknowledge that the Snowden revelations, filtered to the public through responsible journalists,
have served the public interest. And it is equally important to respect the autonomy of the
newsroom. Damage to democracy and to the credibility of elected governments inevitably is
inflicted when disapproval of truthful reporting causes officials to intrude into the internal
editorial decisions of news organizations.
Respectfully,
The Reporters Committee for Freedom of the Press
American Society of News Editors
The Associated Press
The E.W. Scripps Company
The McClatchy Company
The New York Times Company
The New Yorker
Newspaper Association of America
ProPublica
The Seattle Times Company
Society of Professional Journalists
The Washington Post
World Association of Newspapers and News
Publishers (WAN-IFRA)
Tallbloke's Talkshop 
One of my problems is that I no longer trust the Guardian to report all the facts of “public interest” that may come into their possession.
Their naked green-mongering in the face of publicly available facts about carbon dioxide and cAGW diminishes their credibility in other areas.
It’s a difficult one. If you work for the UK government i.e. any civil servant you have to sign the Official Secrets Act, so as soon as you reveal anything unauthorised to the media you’ve broken the law. If you take the job that’s the deal.
Can anyone explain to me why this little adage only applies to Western Democracies that are closely aligned with the United States?
“The guarding of military and diplomatic secrets at the expense of informed representative government provides no real security for our Republic.”
Apparently, enquiring minds don’t require any education when it comes to the Russian, Chinese, Iranian, Pakistani, Indian, North Korean, Brazilian, Cuban, Venezuelan and Egyptian governments. these governments get a free pass, since they appear to free of any sinister motives and they seem to be incapable of doing anything wrong.
And before any makes the comment – all but three of the above countries (i.e. China, Cuba and North Korea) I refere to hold regular elections and they claim to be multi-party democracies.
Right on.
Thanks. A difficult dilemma. Had Ed Snowden signed a U.S. equivalent of the Official Secrets Act or is there no such thing?
I agree with Michael Hart that all the MSM outlets censor their publications by omission of relevant facts and so one loses confidence.
Overall, a free, responsible press is essential for a properly functioning democracy and Leverson type restrictions are frightening.
However, revealing names of “agents” who are protecting us from harm is worrying for both us and them. It would be naive to suggest that we don’t need intelligence from a variety of threats.
My most generous guess is that Alan Rusbridger, the Guardian editor, probably never gets to even see the type of comments that are routinely deleted from Guardian environmental articles by their antipodean-imports from the website-that-cannot-be-named.
They have some scorpions running around inside the Guardian tent of press-freedoms and “community standards”.