- + Rahina joined Debatewise
- + Ll Blynch voted on the debate Are ASBOs Effective?
- + Jdickins voted on a point for the debate The death penalty should be reinstated in the UK
- + Ll Blynch voted on a point for the debate Are ASBOs Effective?
- + Menareangrynow voted on the debate Are women superior to men?
- + Jdickins voted on a point for the debate The death penalty should be reinstated in the UK
- + Ll Blynch voted on a point for the debate Are ASBOs Effective?
- + Jdickins voted on a point for the debate 1-child policy for every single country in the world!
- + Jdickins edited the debate 1-child policy for every single country in the world!
- + Dillas2 joined Debatewise
- + Moilt Evomot joined Debatewise
- + Garbypizzaro joined Debatewise
- + Elefweiree Law joined Debatewise
- + Jdickins voted on a point for the debate The death penalty should be reinstated in the UK
- + Jdickins voted on a point for the debate The death penalty should be reinstated in the UK
- + Zedspeni Asype joined Debatewise
- + Qualaypak joined Debatewise
- + Jdickins joined Debatewise
- + Lisa1985 joined Debatewise
- + Alexis Skitini voted on a point for the debate Legalise drugs worldwide
- + Terri Re joined Debatewise
- + Rhoda Doku joined Debatewise
- + Murphy Becca joined Debatewise
- + Ll Blynch edited the debate Are ASBOs Effective?
IS IT RIGHT THAT PARLIAMENT CAN PREVENT "THE GUARDIAN" FROM REPORTING ON PARLIAMENTARY PROCEEDINGS?
The title is self-explanatory. If you agree vote "Yes" and if you disagree vote "No".
Is it right that Parliament can prevent "The Guardian" from reporting on Parliamentary proceedings?
Yes, because... Freedom vs. Right.
There is, in this country, freedom. Its freedom may often be curbed, refused and blatantly suspended - but freedom, nonetheless. For those instances in which freedom is disallowed (Terrorism Act 2006, for example), it is obvious that it has to be made law. This did not happen in the case of "The Guardian".
"The Guardian has been prevented from reporting parliamentary proceedings on legal grounds which appear to call into question privileges guaranteeing free speech established under the 1688 Bill of Rights", "The Guardian's" opening paragraph states. It would seem so.
However, there are, I believe, exceptional circumstances under which newspapers should be refused access to 'X' and then told to keep all information disclosed secret; "Legal obstacles, which cannot be identified, involve proceedings, which cannot be mentioned, on behalf of a client who must remain secret."
The only reported fact is that the case includes "Carter-Ruck" (a London solicitors).
The freedom of the press is central to our democracy. It is central to finding out what goes on and what doesn't. However, it is also the responsibility of the press to tell the truth. If the press slants the truth or reports the news in a biased manner (remember that choosing what news to report is also biased) then, given that they have already broken their promise (though unspoken), they should be able to be kept in check. Newspapers must know their place. They are not there to probe and report things that will cause more trouble by knowing them. What if the case is about a terrorist campaign which would be succeed if anyone else knew about it apart from the Government? Surely then we should argue that the press cannot and must not know about it?
The truth of the matter is, it probably wasn't an issue of that scale. But that is besides the point. The point is that the press, whilst free, must not abuse its freedom.
We must conclude also that whatever "The Guardian" was prevented from seeing was both honest and important. For the Government to refuse access to a newspaper over something dishonest is to ask for an investigation to be opened. The Government would know that "The Guardian" would report this the next day. The issue must have been extremely important and nothing too dodgy. If it was then, again, the last thing the Government would want to do is attract loads of attention over it.
The responsibility of the press is to inform the public. However, sometimes the public should not be informed. Why should they be informed about everything? Perhaps this should be a topic for another debate. I'll post it now, and we can debate this point there.
(Reference for "The Guardian" quotations: Tuesday 13.10.09, "The Guardian", Page 1. Title: "Guardian gagged from reporting parliament").
Vote on this debate: Is it right that Parliament can prevent "The Guardian" from reporting on Parliamentary proceedings?
Modified:
06 Apr 2010
Point 1. Freedom vs. Right.
There is, in this country, freedom. Its freedom may often be curbed, refused and blatantly suspended - but freedom, nonetheless. For those instances in which freedom is disallowed (Terrorism Act 2006, for example), it is obvious that it has to be made law. This did not happen in the case of "The Guardian".
"The Guardian has been prevented from reporting parliamentary proceedings on legal grounds which appear to call into question privileges guaranteeing free speech established under the 1688 Bill of Rights", "The Guardian's" opening paragraph states. It would seem so.
However, there are, I believe, exceptional circumstances under which newspapers should be refused access to 'X' and then told to keep all information disclosed secret; "Legal obstacles, which cannot be identified, involve proceedings, which cannot be mentioned, on behalf of a client who must remain secret."
The only reported fact is that the case includes "Carter-Ruck" (a London solicitors).
The freedom of the press is central to our democracy. It is central to finding out what goes on and what doesn't. However, it is also the responsibility of the press to tell the truth. If the press slants the truth or reports the news in a biased manner (remember that choosing what news to report is also biased) then, given that they have already broken their promise (though unspoken), they should be able to be kept in check. Newspapers must know their place. They are not there to probe and report things that will cause more trouble by knowing them. What if the case is about a terrorist campaign which would be succeed if anyone else knew about it apart from the Government? Surely then we should argue that the press cannot and must not know about it?
The truth of the matter is, it probably wasn't an issue of that scale. But that is besides the point. The point is that the press, whilst free, must not abuse its freedom.
We must conclude also that whatever "The Guardian" was prevented from seeing was both honest and important. For the Government to refuse access to a newspaper over something dishonest is to ask for an investigation to be opened. The Government would know that "The Guardian" would report this the next day. The issue must have been extremely important and nothing too dodgy. If it was then, again, the last thing the Government would want to do is attract loads of attention over it.
The responsibility of the press is to inform the public. However, sometimes the public should not be informed. Why should they be informed about everything? Perhaps this should be a topic for another debate. I'll post it now, and we can debate this point there.
(Reference for "The Guardian" quotations: Tuesday 13.10.09, "The Guardian", Page 1. Title: "Guardian gagged from reporting parliament").