The Guardian says this morning that it "has been prevented from reporting parliamentary proceedings on legal grounds which appear to call into question privileges guaranteeing free speech established under the 1688 Bill of Rights."Guido points to this question on the Commons order paper and wonders if it is the source of the trouble
Paul Farrelly (Newcastle-under-Lyme): To ask the Secretary of State for Justice, what assessment he has made of the effectiveness of legislation to protect (a) whistleblowers and (b) press freedom following the injunctions obtained in the High Court by (i) Barclays and Freshfields solicitors on 19 March 2009 on the publication of internal Barclays reports documenting alleged tax avoidance schemes and (ii) Trafigura and Carter-Ruck solicitors on 11 September 2009 on the publication of the Minton report on the alleged dumping of toxic waste in the Ivory Coast, commissioned by Trafigura.
Surely it can't be. For what English judge would dare issue an order banning the reporting of a legitimate question by an elected representative?
Post your comment
Nick Cohen is a columnist for the Observer. You Can't Read This Book, his account of modern censorship, will be published this month by encounter.
- World Youth Day Diary: Day One
- Breivik and Anti-Muslim Bigotry
- Who'd be a TLA?
- Daniel Johnson on Elena Bonner
- In praise of the essay
- Told You So
- Analysis: Al-Qaeda After Bin Laden
- Help JIMAS
- How Western Jihadis See Libya
- Sumption plays hard to get
- The Commentator — A Serious New Website
- Supreme Court: runners, riders and delays
- In defence of Quilliam
- Self-censorship in the British Media
- Parliament Square is not Tahrir Square
- How does this end?
- Gaddafi has little to fear from ICC
- "We call them the nutters, because that's what they are"
- Peter Oborne's Hypocrisies
