Comments on: Where are the fighters for press freedom now?

By: 6000

6000 — Thu, 01 Jul 2010 09:47:13 +0000

I don’t think that the two are mutually exclusive. You can investigate the security breach and arrest the hack. I know they’ve done the latter and I would be shocked if they hadn’t done the former. As Cele pointed out, such incidents – however caused – do not reflect well on SA and its security for the tournament.

But as I said, the charges against Wright don’t relate to the trespass incident. They relate to what he did to protect his source (and therefore his exclusive) after the incident. He could have simply waited until Joseph was arrested, charged and bailed before getting his interview, but instead apparently chose to book him into the Bay Hotel under a false name. That’s got nothing to do with press freedom at all.
Wright’s only concern was that another journo didn’t get to Joseph first and he broke the law to ensure that it didn’t happen.
I still haven’t seen anything here (or anywhere else) that gives me any reason to believe that he should not be prosecuted.

By: Andrew Trench

Andrew Trench — Wed, 30 Jun 2010 15:31:17 +0000

Doesn’t it strike you as something of an over-reaction to arrest a journalist over what, as Ivo correctly points out, seems to be a simple trespass issue? The fact that the transgressor has been let off with a light admission of guilt fine doesn’t suggest that the prosecuting authorities regard this as some great crime against the state.
I also agree with Ivo that there are lots of fine lines in this. For example, I had an experience some years ago at the Sunday Times when we revealed guys selling dodgy vehicle roadworthy certificates. We used wrecked a bus chassis to generate the documents which they then issued roadworthy certificates on. The cops reaction was to threaten to prosecute myself and the reporter rather than investigate the guys selling the fake roadworthy certificates. Who should have been prosecuted?
My point is that journalists are the first to be nailed when the authorities should be looking more seriously at the issues that are exposed. What was the security threat to the English team and does it merit further investigation?
If you boil this down to its bare bones (based on what we know) does it merit arresting a journalist? I don’t think so. And I do think that we need to make a noise about press freedom, even if we don’t like the story that was told.

By: 6000

6000 — Wed, 30 Jun 2010 14:44:33 +0000

OK – so maybe we don’t have all the facts at our disposal just yet, but let’s theorise on your thoretical theories here:

What happened in the changing room trespass incident is of no significance to the charges against Wright. Joseph (the fan) was charged under the FIFA act for “being somewhere that he shouldn’t be without having the accreditation to be there” or whatever. He’s paid R750 admission of guilt charge and he’s gone.
It’s over.

Wright’s charges relate to what happened after the incident. If there was no warrant for the arrest of Joseph when Wright “sequestered” him away at the Bay Hotel, then the charge of Defeating the Ends of Justice might have to be dropped, I understand. It’s only if there was a warrant out that hiding him this way is against the law.
However, booking Joseph into the Bay Hotel under a false name is clearly in contravention of the Immigration Act. I don’t care who Wright is, what story he was “pursuing” or what vulgar stories he has reeled out about SA in the run up to the World Cup (and there have been a few) – that is illegal.

‘Press Freedom’, my arse. You can’t break a straightforward law like that and expect to get away with it.
Bang him up and let’s hear what he thinks of Pollsmoor.

By: Ivo Vegter

Ivo Vegter — Wed, 30 Jun 2010 14:29:07 +0000

There’s a lot of fine lines here. In principle, I think you have a good point.

Leaving aside questions of whether the fan’s actions were criminal, whether they should have been criminal, or how serious they were. I think he should get a R100 misdemeanour fine for ignoring a no-entry sign and causing a public nuisance, but let’s assume the police had legitimate cause to arrest and charge him with a crime.

1. Does committing a crime, or conspiring to commit a crime, for the sake of demonstrating that it can be done, grant a journalist immunity from prosecution? I don’t think so.
2. Does protecting a source extend to actively harbouring a fugitive from justice, and if he does so, should a journalist be immune from prosecution for such an action? I don’t think so.

There’s a dangerous area here, and one which not only undermines the legitimate cause of justice, but also undermines the public’s faith in the legitimacy of journalism. This is to think that press freedom places journalists above the law. The media does have rights and privileges on grounds of press freedom, yes, but I do not believe these rights extend to criminal actions in pursuit of a story.