Thread by @allthecitizens

Today, a debate on #WorldPressFreedomDay2022 will take place in Parliament.

The day ‘acts as a reminder to governments of the need to respect their commitment to press freedom’. Meanwhile, the Tories are doing the exact opposite.

How? Find out 👇🧵
#BillWatch

This year’s theme was “Journalism Under Digital Siege”, underlining the role of information in an online media environment, with a focus on:

➡️Freedom of expression
➡️The safety of journalists
➡️Access to information
➡️Privacy

commonslibrary.parliament.uk/research-brief…

This years’ theme, fittingly, could be critically applied to sections of proposed bills, which could target journalists and allowing ministers to evade scrutiny instead of protecting freedoms. In fact, sections of the National Security Bill are of the most serious concern.

The Bill has already passed a second reading.

The National Security Bill is instrumental to the government’s crackdown on press freedoms; targeting whistleblowers, civil society organisations, and those handling leaked materials, with a possible maximum penalty of a life sentence, in certain cases.
opendemocracy.net/en/national-se…

While ostensibly aimed at curtailing the efforts of ‘foreign powers’ committing espionage, the application is much broader, with clauses making it an offence to ‘obtain, copy, record or retain’ information which is ‘protected’ or ‘prejudicial to the safety or interests of the UK’

While the focus is on what would seem to relate to classified documents, this isn’t actually the case.

The Bill massively increases the definition of what information would then become illegal to share…
cfoi.org.uk/wp-content/upl…

‘Protected information’ is set out later as including information which is ‘restricted in any way, or it is reasonable to expect that access would be restricted in any way’ - covering info refused under FOI or EIR, as well leaked materials...

with understanding of what constitutes “safety or interests” decided by government ministers...

By adopting such an extensive definition, the bill also criminalises reporting on information not officially released by the government, conducted by those working “on behalf of a foreign power” - another ambiguously worded phrase within the legislation.
opendemocracy.net/en/national-se…

Problematically, “working on behalf of a foreign power” would, under the Bill, now also include any organisation, like NGOs or news outlets, that have received any funding from non-UK-based sources, including both hostile and allied nation-states.

The bill also ignores recommendations to include a public interest defence for people who do publish - a similarly worrying development - meaning further limitations to what journalists would be able to report on without fear of crushing reprisals.
yorkshirebylines.co.uk/news/home-affa…

We’ve witnessed first-hand how the wealthy and connected try and silence journalists, as with Cadwalladr V Banks...
theguardian.com/commentisfree/…

In that instance, fortunately, the precedent established in a public interest defence victory was crucial in protecting the rights of journalists to speak truth to power:

https://twitter.com/carolecadwalla/status/1538537541271441409?s=20&t=lVyZpOZJ_HWhVJJ9D4dBOQ

Carole’s defence was successful, but those who work with leaked, hacked or otherwise ‘protected’ information would be offered no such recourse under the Bill - and potentially face life in prison for publishing ‘unofficial’ material critical of governments
theguardian.com/commentisfree/…

While on the one hand this limits what journalists can publish, this bill would also grant ministers and spies immunity from allegations of crimes committed abroad, including murder and torture - making it even harder to hold them to account:
independent.co.uk/independentpre…

As a country, we’re already witnessing pushback from ministers over what they consider “publishable”. Take, for example, yet another Downing St. scandal that erupted over the weekend, concerning a story being removed after pressure from No.10.

Downing St. had reportedly imposed an injunction on a report, originally published in The Times, of then-Foreign Secretary Boris Johnson offering a £100,000 role as Chief of Staff to his then-mistress Carrie Symonds.

https://twitter.com/receiptkeepers/status/1538603057013043202?s=20&t=8iopNPL6z-yhpyTynNBuFw

The story emerged in the first edition, and then disappeared, prompting further investigations by journalists, mixed denials/non-denials from No.10 officials, and an embarrassing Streisand Effect in what seems to be an attempted Westminster cover-up of a corruption scandal...

The UK ranks 33rd on the World Press Freedom Index, indicating that it's upholding of press freedoms is “satisfactory”, but not “good” - and the National Security Bill is the most thorough, but far from the only, attack on journalism from this government.
rsf.org/en/index

Help us scrutinise the unprecedented assault on our democracy from our own government 🇬🇧

#StopTheSlide

Support our #BillWatch

crowdfunder.co.uk/p/bill-watch