Learn from the mistakes of others

Decline at nine: ultimatum by flailing network 'a blow to free press'
smh.com.au BUSINESS
Natasha Wallace
July 1, 2006

NEWSPAPER companies yesterday attacked as "unprecedented" the Nine Network's attempt to force journalists to reveal information about a damaging affidavit on its television operations.

Nine yesterday issued a subpoena to Fairfax, publisher of the Herald and The Age, and News Limited, demanding journalists divulge from whom and how they received the affidavit.But last night it dropped its injunction against the affidavit.

No other media companies were issued with the notice, filed in the NSW Supreme Court earlier yesterday, legally obliging them to file any correspondence regarding the affidavit - and its source - by 9am on Wednesday.

Earlier this week, Nine successfully obtained an injunction on the publication of the affidavit after parts of it were posted on the Crikey website on Monday.

The affidavit, written by Nine's former head of news and current affairs, Mark Llewellyn, contains conversations between him and Mr Eddie McGuire.

Fairfax yesterday described Nine's tactic to issue the subpoena as "unprecedented and outrageous". Fairfax's corporate affairs director, Bruce Wolpe, said: "By demanding we disclose our sources, Nine is seeking to eviscerate a principle that is indispensable to the operation of a free press in a democracy. That a leading media company such as Nine would wilfully undercut such a fundamental tenet of broadcast and print journalism is a disgrace."

The subpoena said the companies must produce to the court "all documents which constitute a copy of the whole or any part of an affidavit sworn by Mark Llewellyn".

News Limited's director of corporate affairs, Greg Baxter, said Nine's journalists "must be embarrassed that management no longer support the principles of ethical journalism, which at the core must always preserve the confidentiality of sources.

"There are many threats to press freedom in this country but few are as disturbing as this assault by Nine."

Nine had also "vehemently" denied the claim that Mr Llewellyn was directed to prepare a story attacking Mr Stokes.

It had said Mr Llewellyn's claim that he was directed by the then Nine chief executive, Sam Chisholm, to sack John Lyons, had not been made before and was "at odds with what Mr Llewellyn said at the time".

Before dropping its injunction, Nine said yesterday: "It is alleged that 'threats' were made to Mr Llewellyn by the chief executive officer of PBL, John Alexander. No particulars are given and no threats were made. Again, to Nine's knowledge, this claim has not been made before." Days after the alleged incidents, it said, Mr Llewellyn "freely" entered into a long-term contract with Nine.

Decline at nine: ultimatum by flailing network 'a blow to free press'
smh.com.au BUSINESS
Natasha Wallace
July 1, 2006

NEWSPAPER companies yesterday attacked as "unprecedented" the Nine Network's attempt to force journalists to reveal information about a damaging affidavit on its television operations.

Nine yesterday issued a subpoena to Fairfax, publisher of the Herald and The Age, and News Limited, demanding journalists divulge from whom and how they received the affidavit.But last night it dropped its injunction against the affidavit.

No other media companies were issued with the notice, filed in the NSW Supreme Court earlier yesterday, legally obliging them to file any correspondence regarding the affidavit - and its source - by 9am on Wednesday.

Earlier this week, Nine successfully obtained an injunction on the publication of the affidavit after parts of it were posted on the Crikey website on Monday.

The affidavit, written by Nine's former head of news and current affairs, Mark Llewellyn, contains conversations between him and Mr Eddie McGuire.

Fairfax yesterday described Nine's tactic to issue the subpoena as "unprecedented and outrageous". Fairfax's corporate affairs director, Bruce Wolpe, said: "By demanding we disclose our sources, Nine is seeking to eviscerate a principle that is indispensable to the operation of a free press in a democracy. That a leading media company such as Nine would wilfully undercut such a fundamental tenet of broadcast and print journalism is a disgrace."

The subpoena said the companies must produce to the court "all documents which constitute a copy of the whole or any part of an affidavit sworn by Mark Llewellyn".

News Limited's director of corporate affairs, Greg Baxter, said Nine's journalists "must be embarrassed that management no longer support the principles of ethical journalism, which at the core must always preserve the confidentiality of sources.

"There are many threats to press freedom in this country but few are as disturbing as this assault by Nine."

Nine had also "vehemently" denied the claim that Mr Llewellyn was directed to prepare a story attacking Mr Stokes.

It had said Mr Llewellyn's claim that he was directed by the then Nine chief executive, Sam Chisholm, to sack John Lyons, had not been made before and was "at odds with what Mr Llewellyn said at the time".

Before dropping its injunction, Nine said yesterday: "It is alleged that 'threats' were made to Mr Llewellyn by the chief executive officer of PBL, John Alexander. No particulars are given and no threats were made. Again, to Nine's knowledge, this claim has not been made before." Days after the alleged incidents, it said, Mr Llewellyn "freely" entered into a long-term contract with Nine.

This is why I'm a human rights lawyer in a "wealthy liberal 'representative' democracy" ...

So many lawyers, so little responsibility
Adele Horin, July 1, 2006, smh.com.au

Go read this article.

Even lawyers don't like this kind of lawyer - the politician.

And about half of us [Australians] voted for them to run the place ...

This is why I'm a human rights lawyer in a "wealthy liberal 'representative' democracy" ...

So many lawyers, so little responsibility
Adele Horin, July 1, 2006, smh.com.au

Go read this article.

Even lawyers don't like this kind of lawyer - the politician.

And about half of us [Australians] voted for them to run the place ...

Monday, June 26, 2006
UK will not ask US to release Guantanamo detainee Hicks
Holly Manges Jones at 7:04 PM ET

[JURIST] The UK Foreign Office [official website] has said that the United Kingdom will not petition the US to release Australian national David Hicks [JURIST news archive; advocacy website] from the US prison at Guantanamo Bay [JURIST news archive]. Hicks, a suspected member of the Taliban who has been detained for over four years, won British citizenship [JURIST report] earlier this year based on his mother's nationality and had hoped to gain assistance from the British government in securing his release. Nine other British detainees were freed - the last four in early 2005 [JURIST report] - when the UK protested their imprisonments by arguing that military commissions [JURIST news archive] are illegal. But Hicks will not receive the same type of aid from the British government, which says he was an Australian citizen at the time of his capture and that Australia has provided previous consular assistance to him.

Hicks has been charged with attempted murder and conspiracy to commit war crimes. His trial has been postponed pending a US Supreme Court [official website] decision on the legality of military commissions [JURIST report], which is expected to be handed down before the end of June.

From Australia, ABC News has local coverage.

Monday, June 26, 2006
UK will not ask US to release Guantanamo detainee Hicks
Holly Manges Jones at 7:04 PM ET

[JURIST] The UK Foreign Office [official website] has said that the United Kingdom will not petition the US to release Australian national David Hicks [JURIST news archive; advocacy website] from the US prison at Guantanamo Bay [JURIST news archive]. Hicks, a suspected member of the Taliban who has been detained for over four years, won British citizenship [JURIST report] earlier this year based on his mother's nationality and had hoped to gain assistance from the British government in securing his release. Nine other British detainees were freed - the last four in early 2005 [JURIST report] - when the UK protested their imprisonments by arguing that military commissions [JURIST news archive] are illegal. But Hicks will not receive the same type of aid from the British government, which says he was an Australian citizen at the time of his capture and that Australia has provided previous consular assistance to him.

Hicks has been charged with attempted murder and conspiracy to commit war crimes. His trial has been postponed pending a US Supreme Court [official website] decision on the legality of military commissions [JURIST report], which is expected to be handed down before the end of June.

From Australia, ABC News has local coverage.

Friday, June 16, 2006
Australia AG says changing terror laws could compromise national security
Joshua Pantesco at 9:57 AM ET

Friday, June 16, 2006
Australia Senate upholds federal override of capital district civil union law
Joshua Pantesco at 10:03 AM ET

Friday, June 16, 2006
UK Foreign Office takes over Hicks Guantanamo release case
Jaime Jansen at 11:42 AM ET

Friday, June 16, 2006
Australia AG says changing terror laws could compromise national security
Joshua Pantesco at 9:57 AM ET

Friday, June 16, 2006
Australia Senate upholds federal override of capital district civil union law
Joshua Pantesco at 10:03 AM ET

Friday, June 16, 2006
UK Foreign Office takes over Hicks Guantanamo release case
Jaime Jansen at 11:42 AM ET