25. Jan. 2010. – 14:47:25
Many thousands of pages have been written
about the situation when the "rock" of the freedom of publication of
news meets the "irresistible force" of the state`s duty of public
protection. Indeed the First Amendment to the Constitution of the U.S.A.
guarantees this freedom. It is a matter of perennial debate in this country and
every so often a case arises which hits the headlines.
This won`t hit the headlines but for those
who can remember South Africa before Nelson Mandela, when an apartheid
government governed often by decree, to read of a case where two journalists
have rejected demands to reveal full details of two people they interviewed
suspected of planning attacks against visitors to the World Cup a breath of
fresh air wafts through cyber space. The case against them at Johannesburg
Magistrate's Court was postponed today. The Police Minister said, "we have
a constitutional obligation, we think that freedom of expression in itself is
not absolute and it can't be absolute at the expense of safety and security in
the country."
Thirty years ago there were few non white
journalists working in South African TV. Thirty years ago any journalist daring
to criticise or refuse the government was a hero risking all. Would that
government here was moving along a path of improving openness. The Freedom of
Information Act is certainly of benefit to we ordinary citizens but only when
the temperature of enquiry doesn`t get heated.
Recently The Independent won a three year
battle to publish secret correspondence between Buckingham Palace and the
government concerning the cost of the monarchy. The Information Commissioner
gave the government 35 days to release letters sent during negotiations for an
increase in the civil list. It was reported a few weeks ago in the Daily Mail
that Gordon Brown plans to use his veto to block publication. Obviously the
temperature is getting too hot....Fahrenheit 451?
No comments:
Post a Comment