Chinese rights activist Wang Lihong has been sentenced to nine months in prison for “stirring up trouble”. Wang was charged after attending a demonstration last year at the trial of three other activists in Fuzhou, southern China, supporting three bloggers accused of defamation for helping a woman who pressed officials to reinvestigate her daughter’s death. Wang was detained in March of this year, following the government’s widespread crackdown on dissent.
As he took soundings from lawyers earlier this week, Lord Justice Leveson served notice that he would run his inquiry into the hackgate scandal and media ethics very much on his own terms. With the odd put-down to barristers for sloppy briefs, Leveson set out the running order of his investigation and priorities. He will be nobody’s patsy.
The key players have already been dubbed in the corridors of the court either the “perps” (the alleged perpetrators) or the “victims”. Most of the narrative so far in the Commons Culture Media and Sport Select Committee proceedings and in the broader public domain has clearly been able to delineate between the two.
Yet, as events over the past few days show, the deeper the tentacles of the law intervene, the more confused some are becoming about rights and wrongs. The Metropolitan police’s questioning under caution of Guardian reporter Amelia Hill is the most serious known case so far of an embattled force struggling to understand the terrain. They probably did it in their state of confusion, without thinking through the ramifications. Instances such as this should not be repeated.
It is perfectly within the rights of any company or organisation to discipline an employee if they leak information without authorisation – although it is equally for courts or tribunals to determine whether that action was in the public interest.
There is absolutely no authority, however, to impinge upon a journalist’s legitimate work — the garnering of sources and subsequent protection of them. Hill is not accused of paying anyone for information or doing anything underhand or immoral. She has no case to answer and should never have been questioned. It is good that not only did the NUJ spring to her defence — as would be expected of it — but also the Culture Secretary, Jeremy Hunt. While not mentioning the case directly, he told MPs: “We must be careful not to overreact in a way that would undermine the foundations of a free society”.
One of the challenges for Leveson is to ensure that whatever measures are proposed to tighten procedures in the wake of the phone hacking scandal do not impinge on much-needed investigative journalism. A strong media is a bedrock to a healthy democracy and, as I never tire of saying: Look back over the past decades and ask yourself, have journalists found out too much about the activities of those with power or too little?
With that in mind, Leveson will need to help the forces of law and order to separate out the Amelia Hills from the spivs and crooks in league with bent coppers.
On Monday, Iran prevented filmmaker Mojtaba Mirtahmasb from boarding a flight to Paris in order to attend the Toronto film festival, where his documentary about the detained filmmaker Jafar Panahi will be shown. The film shows a day in the life of Panahi, who is currently serving a six-year prison sentence for a film he made about the unrest in Iran following the disputed election in 2009.
A libel lawsuit filed by Donald Trump has been brushed aside by a New Jersey appeals court yesterday. The lawsuit was filed against author Timothy L O’Brien after he wrote a passage suggesting that Trump was worth substantially less than he claims. O’Brien cited three anonymous sources who valued Trump’s worth at between $150 million and $250 million, not the $7 billion he estimates. Trump filed the lawsuit in 2009, when it was rejected. The appeals court affirmed the lower court ruling, and declared that they did not find the existent of ‘actual malice’ in the matter.