7 ms·

The D-Notice: A British Way of Censoring the Press

151 points by caret 4y ago

KineticLensman 4y ago
Should I read anything sinister into the complete lack of comments (after one hour, as I write this) on this article?
- tomcatfish 4y ago
  No. I'm being paid off by a different guy
- bell-cot 4y ago
  No. It doesn't help that it struck me as drawn-out and disjointed. Worse - I never got the sense that the public would much care if the facts that the DMSA is keeping secret could be freely published in Britain. Nor (post-Snowden, and having read about some of America's secret gag orders) that the UK is up to anything all that bad (by the modern-day western world's very low standards).
- Veen 4y ago
  Perhaps no one has anything to say about it. If you're eager for an opinion: I was already familiar with D-Notices—they've been around in some form since 1912—and I think they're a necessary tool to stop the UK press publishing information they shouldn't publish. I don't believe they are egregiously abused although there is scope for abuse and they have been abused in the past. Super-injunctions are more worrying to me because there is even less democratic accountability. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Super-injunctions_in_English_law https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Super-injunctions_in_English_l...
- mike_hearn 4y ago
  D-Notices aren't quite as obscure as the article makes out. I've known they existed for many years, I'm not quite sure why but there's no particular reason I'd know about them. I'm not a journalist and never was. The Official Secrets Act is probably bad law, it's one of the many places where the USA has superior laws that are much better at keeping bad government in check. The various attempts to expand censorship in the UK are also very bad, in my view. The D-Notice system is difficult to really get worked up about because, as this exposé makes clear, it's: a. Voluntary. b. Sometimes ignored, even by major outlets like the Guardian. c. Largely made up of journalists themselves. d. So shadowy that they publish photos of themselves and upload meeting notes to government websites. e. Apparently very tightly concerned with stuff like publishing the names of spies, soldiers, troop movements, etc. The classical sorts of information that has a very direct and obvious reason for being kept out of the press. The article tries to build a case that it's being used in over-broad ways like with Assange, but honestly I don't buy it. The media doesn't need some shadowy committee to stop it covering the Assange story properly. At some point it became received wisdom in media circles to hate him and journalists need no incentive to bury stories if they find them inconvenient. The Guardian in particular has a long running and well documented vendetta against Assange. You'd see the same approach if D-Notices existed or not.
  - NovemberWhiskey 4y ago
    >D-Notices aren't quite as obscure as the article makes out. I think that puts it very mildly. There was a gigantic public scandal as far back as 1967 about D-notices.
    - selimthegrim 4y ago
      Tinker Tailor Soldier Spy (the TV show) has a character complaining about them
  - nonrandomstring 4y ago
    Yes there's a lot of looseness. Considering the history of the D-notice in wartime (1914-18 and 1938-45), when the stakes were high, it's a typical British implementation of "strong flexibility". The problem may actually be over-compliance. The days of Woodward and Bernstein have given way to journalists whose idea of ambitiously advancing their careers involves not offending anyone and running to mummy to ask permission at every juncture - not of government but their corporate/advertising lords.
    - barrbid8 4y ago
      Kit klarenberg the author of this sneaky article that draws readers in with somewhat reasonable start then descends into nonsense about Russian government operations like trump and skripal, works or worked for the Russian government’s self declared “information weapon” (rt)
- A4ET8a8uTh0 4y ago
  Personally, I think there is a level of fatigue that has set in. Post 9/11 Americans had a lot of their innocence taken away from them as various leaks ( including Assange's, Snowden's and others' ). Note that I say Americans, because it is genuinely difficult for me to gauge it elsewhere ( and quite frankly, I might be wrong about US too ). I could offer anecdotes, but my interactions with my social circles more and more indicate 'well, duh' to stories like this and not post-1981 book reading horror of realization that humans can be quite horrible to one another. And, well, since it is clear now that some information is suppressed and some is heavily promoted -- the distrust of general populace appears to be quite high. And this is yet another reason why I constantly argue against the temptations of censorship. That said, this is the path we are on. So to answer your question. No, I don't think it is sinister at all. It is just the current state of affairs. Some subjects are more risky than others.
tomalpha 4y ago
The author is clearly against the extradition of Julian Assange, and the piece comes across as very much written in that context. To be clear: I'm not offering an opinion either way on the rights and wrongs of that, but the piece itself comes down very much on one side of the fence.
- colordrops 4y ago
  What's the implication? That the author is hiding the fact that this is an opinion piece? Or that it's odd to be against the extradition? It's called The Dissenter and they explicitly mention that they support whistleblowers in their about page.
  - tomalpha 4y ago
    I don't think it's going out of its way to hide the fact that it's an opinion piece. I wanted to highlight to someone unfamiliar with the case and issues (however few that may be around these parts), that it is an opinion piece. It makes assertions through a lens of a bias to one side of the case. There's nothing inherently wrong with that. Using the word "bias" isn't intended by me here as a slight - we're all biased to a greater or lesser degree about everything. But a casual reader should be aware of it without having to e.g. navigate to a separate "about" page :)
    - cryptonector 4y ago
      Perhaps your highlighting an obvious fact is itself evidence that you do in fact have an opinion and did share it while saying otherwise, possibly unconsciously.
- stephen_g 4y ago
  The Assange case seems relevant and topical. And regardless, what side of the fence would you expect somebody writing an article about press freedom and censorship to be on? To support extraditing to the US somebody who has never lived or worked there, after it was revealed US officials literally planned to kidnap and/or assassinate him? [1]. And only for the charge of revealing war crimes (apart from some trumped up “hacking” charges that the key witness now admitted lying about? [2]). I really do think somebody would have to be either hopelessly, desperately naive or deliberately lying to themselves to believe Assange could receive a fair trial in the US, and I don’t think it’s reasonable to assert that the US has any kind of jurisdiction over him. 1. https://www.theverge.com/2021/9/27/22696436/cia-kidnap-julian-assange-assassination-pompeo-trump https://www.theverge.com/2021/9/27/22696436/cia-kidnap-julia... 2. https://stundin.is/grein/13627/ https://stundin.is/grein/13627/
notavalleyman 4y ago
I wanted to get behind this more but there were a few sections that had me doubting. 1. It says the UK media largely ignored the Snowden leaks due to a D-Notice - the source supplied didn't really back that up and it didn't sound right to me. Maybe someone can share examples of Snowden-leak-related stories which would have been in UK public interest but were only covered abroad? 2. It says the Steele dossier is largely discredited - I wasn't aware of any discrediting, let alone total. I don't know why the author thought this spin was necessary for the article. Edit to add 3. It says that a D Notice was used to suppress a link between Sergei Skirpal's handler and Orbis Intelligence, while the only sources provided negate that
- fallingknife 4y ago
  The Steele dossier was paid political opposition research, and therefore does not need to be discredited. It is false unless proven true. You could be excused for not knowing this important detail if you get your news from US "journalists."
- sofixa 4y ago
  Regarding 1, The Guardian, a UK based publication, was one of the main ones behind the Snowden interviews and reporting, so it seems to be a bogus claim.
  - dijit 4y ago
    I do sincerely hope you're joking; the guardian got absolutely crucified by the british government at that time. Their HQ was stormed by police along with forced compliance of the destruction of information: https://www.techdirt.com/2013/08/19/uk-govt-forces-guardian-to-destroy-hard-drives-with-snowden-info-guardian-says-reporting-continues-ny/ https://www.techdirt.com/2013/08/19/uk-govt-forces-guardian-... https://www.theguardian.com/world/2014/feb/01/edward-snowden-gchq-visit-guardian-destroy-computers https://www.theguardian.com/world/2014/feb/01/edward-snowden... That said; in theory D-Notice's are voluntary, but non-compliance is vaguely threatened with "increased scrutiny". D-Notices themselves are not exactly secret; they even get a mention in the movie V For Vendetta.
AveburySutton 4y ago
Just to put this window Mr.Overton left us where it belongs, it is a criminal offence in Britain to say anything deemed homophobic even within the confines of your own domicile even to your own family members. Law described: https://www.christian.org.uk/news/views-expressed-in-private-could-be-caught-by-scots-hate-crime-bill/ https://www.christian.org.uk/news/views-expressed-in-private... Law passed: https://www.gov.scot/news/hate-crime-bill-passed/ https://www.gov.scot/news/hate-crime-bill-passed/
StanislavPetrov 4y ago
D-notices certainly aren't the only way the British censors the press. They famously sent agents to the headquarters of The Guardian and forced them to physically destroy the Snowden hard drives in the basement in front of them. https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2014/jan/31/footage-released-guardian-editors-snowden-hard-drives-gchq https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2014/jan/31/footage-rele...
- zahllos 4y ago
  Yes. The reason for this is that the Official Secrets Act makes it illegal for anyone to keep or share anything that is "official information" under it except for "official purposes" i.e. for your government job on a government computer. There is no opt out for journalism and it applies regardless of whether you "sign" it or not. IANAL, but my understanding is the sole thing you can do legally if handed or finding classified documents is to take them to a police station and hand them over. I would guess that the UK Gov knew full well that destroying these documents in the UK would not stop reporting, but doing nothing might set a precedent that they're not keen on.
zahllos 4y ago
I would reply to a sibling comment, but I believe this ought to be top level. I believe the author is conflating "D-Notices may be used to ask the press to self-censor" versus "'the man' is censoring Assange". So far as I am aware, nothing in the Assange trial would actually warrant a D-Notice, and if sensitive information were to be presented to the court it would be done in closed session anyway, since they at least theoretically have that option (they'd have to convince the judge of the need for this, if I understand correctly).
- cryptonector 4y ago
  Why is the Assange extradition case not a good time to mention D-notices?
  - zahllos 4y ago
    That's not quite what I said. I said the article's insinuation that D-Notices are some mysterious gag order and are being used as part of the UK Government's campaign of terror on Assange is wrong. I might be reading too much into the implications, but I don't think I am, feel free to disagree. What D-Notices are is effectively a polite request not to publish certain sensitive information. Editors at newspapers can decide whether or not to comply with the request. Have a look here: https://www.dsma.uk/how-the-system-works/ https://www.dsma.uk/how-the-system-works/ and notice the explicit "DSMA notices have no legal standing". The very idea that this is a secret censorship conspiracy is laughable. I think there is an interesting question arising from the Assange case as to who can claim to be a journalist and what protections this provides, but I do not think D-Notices fit anywhere in this. They're not even a law.
at_a_remove 4y ago
This shows up in the sci-fi/horror film Lifeforce. "Gentlemen, that last remark is not for publication. This is a D-notice situation."
8bitsrule 4y ago
Of course there's nothing new about this censorship, except widerspread knowledge of it. The D-Notice began in 1912. [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/DSMA-Notice https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/DSMA-Notice]
barrbid8 4y ago
Kit klarenberg is a Russian government “journalist”. So that explains the pro trump spin and snide fury at guardian journos or bbc journos.
shashurup 4y ago
Sorry for not adding up to the discussion, but I can't help https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=B9tzoGFszog https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=B9tzoGFszog
rospaya 4y ago
One of the articles linked criticises the UK for spreading misinformation about an upcoming Russian invasion of Ukraine, just a few days before it actually happened. https://thedissenter.org/british-officials-launder-us-intel-russian-coup-plot-ukraine/ https://thedissenter.org/british-officials-launder-us-intel-...
Sporktacular 4y ago
This entire site is full of poorly sourced conspiratorial garbage. Pity as it might hurt Assange's cause.

151 points by caret 4y ago

KineticLensman 4y ago

Should I read anything sinister into the complete lack of comments (after one hour, as I write this) on this article?

tomcatfish 4y ago
No. I'm being paid off by a different guy
bell-cot 4y ago
No. It doesn't help that it struck me as drawn-out and disjointed. Worse - I never got the sense that the public would much care if the facts that the DMSA is keeping secret could be freely published in Britain. Nor (post-Snowden, and having read about some of America's secret gag orders) that the UK is up to anything all that bad (by the modern-day western world's very low standards).
Veen 4y ago
Perhaps no one has anything to say about it. If you're eager for an opinion: I was already familiar with D-Notices—they've been around in some form since 1912—and I think they're a necessary tool to stop the UK press publishing information they shouldn't publish. I don't believe they are egregiously abused although there is scope for abuse and they have been abused in the past. Super-injunctions are more worrying to me because there is even less democratic accountability. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Super-injunctions_in_English_law https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Super-injunctions_in_English_l...
mike_hearn 4y ago
D-Notices aren't quite as obscure as the article makes out. I've known they existed for many years, I'm not quite sure why but there's no particular reason I'd know about them. I'm not a journalist and never was. The Official Secrets Act is probably bad law, it's one of the many places where the USA has superior laws that are much better at keeping bad government in check. The various attempts to expand censorship in the UK are also very bad, in my view. The D-Notice system is difficult to really get worked up about because, as this exposé makes clear, it's: a. Voluntary. b. Sometimes ignored, even by major outlets like the Guardian. c. Largely made up of journalists themselves. d. So shadowy that they publish photos of themselves and upload meeting notes to government websites. e. Apparently very tightly concerned with stuff like publishing the names of spies, soldiers, troop movements, etc. The classical sorts of information that has a very direct and obvious reason for being kept out of the press. The article tries to build a case that it's being used in over-broad ways like with Assange, but honestly I don't buy it. The media doesn't need some shadowy committee to stop it covering the Assange story properly. At some point it became received wisdom in media circles to hate him and journalists need no incentive to bury stories if they find them inconvenient. The Guardian in particular has a long running and well documented vendetta against Assange. You'd see the same approach if D-Notices existed or not.
- NovemberWhiskey 4y ago
  >D-Notices aren't quite as obscure as the article makes out. I think that puts it very mildly. There was a gigantic public scandal as far back as 1967 about D-notices.
  - selimthegrim 4y ago
    Tinker Tailor Soldier Spy (the TV show) has a character complaining about them
- nonrandomstring 4y ago
  Yes there's a lot of looseness. Considering the history of the D-notice in wartime (1914-18 and 1938-45), when the stakes were high, it's a typical British implementation of "strong flexibility". The problem may actually be over-compliance. The days of Woodward and Bernstein have given way to journalists whose idea of ambitiously advancing their careers involves not offending anyone and running to mummy to ask permission at every juncture - not of government but their corporate/advertising lords.
  - barrbid8 4y ago
    Kit klarenberg the author of this sneaky article that draws readers in with somewhat reasonable start then descends into nonsense about Russian government operations like trump and skripal, works or worked for the Russian government’s self declared “information weapon” (rt)
A4ET8a8uTh0 4y ago
Personally, I think there is a level of fatigue that has set in. Post 9/11 Americans had a lot of their innocence taken away from them as various leaks ( including Assange's, Snowden's and others' ). Note that I say Americans, because it is genuinely difficult for me to gauge it elsewhere ( and quite frankly, I might be wrong about US too ). I could offer anecdotes, but my interactions with my social circles more and more indicate 'well, duh' to stories like this and not post-1981 book reading horror of realization that humans can be quite horrible to one another. And, well, since it is clear now that some information is suppressed and some is heavily promoted -- the distrust of general populace appears to be quite high. And this is yet another reason why I constantly argue against the temptations of censorship. That said, this is the path we are on. So to answer your question. No, I don't think it is sinister at all. It is just the current state of affairs. Some subjects are more risky than others.

tomalpha 4y ago

The author is clearly against the extradition of Julian Assange, and the piece comes across as very much written in that context. To be clear: I'm not offering an opinion either way on the rights and wrongs of that, but the piece itself comes down very much on one side of the fence.

colordrops 4y ago
What's the implication? That the author is hiding the fact that this is an opinion piece? Or that it's odd to be against the extradition? It's called The Dissenter and they explicitly mention that they support whistleblowers in their about page.
- tomalpha 4y ago
  I don't think it's going out of its way to hide the fact that it's an opinion piece. I wanted to highlight to someone unfamiliar with the case and issues (however few that may be around these parts), that it is an opinion piece. It makes assertions through a lens of a bias to one side of the case. There's nothing inherently wrong with that. Using the word "bias" isn't intended by me here as a slight - we're all biased to a greater or lesser degree about everything. But a casual reader should be aware of it without having to e.g. navigate to a separate "about" page :)
  - cryptonector 4y ago
    Perhaps your highlighting an obvious fact is itself evidence that you do in fact have an opinion and did share it while saying otherwise, possibly unconsciously.
stephen_g 4y ago
The Assange case seems relevant and topical. And regardless, what side of the fence would you expect somebody writing an article about press freedom and censorship to be on? To support extraditing to the US somebody who has never lived or worked there, after it was revealed US officials literally planned to kidnap and/or assassinate him? [1]. And only for the charge of revealing war crimes (apart from some trumped up “hacking” charges that the key witness now admitted lying about? [2]). I really do think somebody would have to be either hopelessly, desperately naive or deliberately lying to themselves to believe Assange could receive a fair trial in the US, and I don’t think it’s reasonable to assert that the US has any kind of jurisdiction over him. 1. https://www.theverge.com/2021/9/27/22696436/cia-kidnap-julian-assange-assassination-pompeo-trump https://www.theverge.com/2021/9/27/22696436/cia-kidnap-julia... 2. https://stundin.is/grein/13627/ https://stundin.is/grein/13627/

notavalleyman 4y ago

I wanted to get behind this more but there were a few sections that had me doubting. 1. It says the UK media largely ignored the Snowden leaks due to a D-Notice - the source supplied didn't really back that up and it didn't sound right to me. Maybe someone can share examples of Snowden-leak-related stories which would have been in UK public interest but were only covered abroad? 2. It says the Steele dossier is largely discredited - I wasn't aware of any discrediting, let alone total. I don't know why the author thought this spin was necessary for the article. Edit to add 3. It says that a D Notice was used to suppress a link between Sergei Skirpal's handler and Orbis Intelligence, while the only sources provided negate that

fallingknife 4y ago
The Steele dossier was paid political opposition research, and therefore does not need to be discredited. It is false unless proven true. You could be excused for not knowing this important detail if you get your news from US "journalists."
sofixa 4y ago
Regarding 1, The Guardian, a UK based publication, was one of the main ones behind the Snowden interviews and reporting, so it seems to be a bogus claim.
- dijit 4y ago
  I do sincerely hope you're joking; the guardian got absolutely crucified by the british government at that time. Their HQ was stormed by police along with forced compliance of the destruction of information: https://www.techdirt.com/2013/08/19/uk-govt-forces-guardian-to-destroy-hard-drives-with-snowden-info-guardian-says-reporting-continues-ny/ https://www.techdirt.com/2013/08/19/uk-govt-forces-guardian-... https://www.theguardian.com/world/2014/feb/01/edward-snowden-gchq-visit-guardian-destroy-computers https://www.theguardian.com/world/2014/feb/01/edward-snowden... That said; in theory D-Notice's are voluntary, but non-compliance is vaguely threatened with "increased scrutiny". D-Notices themselves are not exactly secret; they even get a mention in the movie V For Vendetta.

AveburySutton 4y ago

Just to put this window Mr.Overton left us where it belongs, it is a criminal offence in Britain to say anything deemed homophobic even within the confines of your own domicile even to your own family members. Law described: https://www.christian.org.uk/news/views-expressed-in-private-could-be-caught-by-scots-hate-crime-bill/ https://www.christian.org.uk/news/views-expressed-in-private... Law passed: https://www.gov.scot/news/hate-crime-bill-passed/ https://www.gov.scot/news/hate-crime-bill-passed/

StanislavPetrov 4y ago

D-notices certainly aren't the only way the British censors the press. They famously sent agents to the headquarters of The Guardian and forced them to physically destroy the Snowden hard drives in the basement in front of them. https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2014/jan/31/footage-released-guardian-editors-snowden-hard-drives-gchq https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2014/jan/31/footage-rele...

zahllos 4y ago
Yes. The reason for this is that the Official Secrets Act makes it illegal for anyone to keep or share anything that is "official information" under it except for "official purposes" i.e. for your government job on a government computer. There is no opt out for journalism and it applies regardless of whether you "sign" it or not. IANAL, but my understanding is the sole thing you can do legally if handed or finding classified documents is to take them to a police station and hand them over. I would guess that the UK Gov knew full well that destroying these documents in the UK would not stop reporting, but doing nothing might set a precedent that they're not keen on.

zahllos 4y ago

I would reply to a sibling comment, but I believe this ought to be top level. I believe the author is conflating "D-Notices may be used to ask the press to self-censor" versus "'the man' is censoring Assange". So far as I am aware, nothing in the Assange trial would actually warrant a D-Notice, and if sensitive information were to be presented to the court it would be done in closed session anyway, since they at least theoretically have that option (they'd have to convince the judge of the need for this, if I understand correctly).

cryptonector 4y ago
Why is the Assange extradition case not a good time to mention D-notices?
- zahllos 4y ago
  That's not quite what I said. I said the article's insinuation that D-Notices are some mysterious gag order and are being used as part of the UK Government's campaign of terror on Assange is wrong. I might be reading too much into the implications, but I don't think I am, feel free to disagree. What D-Notices are is effectively a polite request not to publish certain sensitive information. Editors at newspapers can decide whether or not to comply with the request. Have a look here: https://www.dsma.uk/how-the-system-works/ https://www.dsma.uk/how-the-system-works/ and notice the explicit "DSMA notices have no legal standing". The very idea that this is a secret censorship conspiracy is laughable. I think there is an interesting question arising from the Assange case as to who can claim to be a journalist and what protections this provides, but I do not think D-Notices fit anywhere in this. They're not even a law.

at_a_remove 4y ago

This shows up in the sci-fi/horror film Lifeforce. "Gentlemen, that last remark is not for publication. This is a D-notice situation."

8bitsrule 4y ago

Of course there's nothing new about this censorship, except widerspread knowledge of it. The D-Notice began in 1912. [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/DSMA-Notice https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/DSMA-Notice]

barrbid8 4y ago

Kit klarenberg is a Russian government “journalist”. So that explains the pro trump spin and snide fury at guardian journos or bbc journos.

shashurup 4y ago

Sorry for not adding up to the discussion, but I can't help https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=B9tzoGFszog https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=B9tzoGFszog

rospaya 4y ago

One of the articles linked criticises the UK for spreading misinformation about an upcoming Russian invasion of Ukraine, just a few days before it actually happened. https://thedissenter.org/british-officials-launder-us-intel-russian-coup-plot-ukraine/ https://thedissenter.org/british-officials-launder-us-intel-...

Sporktacular 4y ago

This entire site is full of poorly sourced conspiratorial garbage. Pity as it might hurt Assange's cause.