Quote:
Originally Posted by Sirius
So who makes the choice on what is and what is not in the public interest. What you may think is in the public interest There is others who may not, Where does that stop and with WHO.
|
Well that is the difficult question. I would say most of the times it is an easy judgement to make, but clearly rules and a better body to regulate the press would help with this.
Quote:
|
. Again i will ask why should the HRA be used to protect the Guardian if they have broken the LAW?
|
It's to protect the Guardian's sources. Not The Guardian itself, who didn't break the law as far as I am aware.
Quote:
|
BTW before you accuse me of supporting that this information should not have been released, i do feel we should have been told about it, However its the law i am looking at and why the Guardian seem to think they are above it and untouchable ?
|
In future it is far less likely to be released if newspapers can no longer protect their sources. Whistle blowing will be far less common if the person leaking the information knows they stand a good chance of losing their job at best or facing prosecution at worst.
The Guardian should have a public interest defence in protecting their sources. That would be that they exposed NOTW and police corruption and to prosecute them for doing so would deter future whistle blowers.