A Conservative Member of Parliament has said that the Guardian should be prosecuted for publishing stories about mass surveillance by the British security services revealed by whistleblower Edward Snowden.
Julian Smith, MP said the newspaper had “broken the law” at a parliamentary debate on the issue of surveillance, and that the paper had seriously damaged national security. Smith had also complained to police and criticized the newspaper for writing stories without consulting with the government. “To communicate, not just publish, any identifying information about GCHQ personnel is a terrorist offense,” he said. “This is not press freedom—this is the Guardian’s devastating impact on national security.”
Some Labour and Tory MPs accused Smith of McCarthyism saying the material the Guardian published is “certainly in the public interest.”
The Guardian responded that Smith has “propagated a series of myths” about the Guardian’s reporting. “When responsible journalists working on the same story share documents they are engaged in journalism not terrorism. Senior politicians and government officials in the UK and internationally, over 30 of the world’s leading newspaper editors, and an overwhelming majority of the public, have all said that the Guardian’s reporting on this story is important for democracy.”
It was suggested that “Smith should be more concerned that UK government secrets were accessible to hundreds of thousands of US government employees,” including Snowden, if he was so worried about national security.
Freedom of the press is a key component of liberty enshrined in British common law. Britain is part of the “five eyes” nations that have a global surveillance partnership and share information freely among themselves and others. Publicly attacking a news source bullies the media outlet to be more cautious in the future about revealing information about abuses the government would not want to be known. Fear of prosecution could provoke media companies to silence.
Every protection of freedom will be removed in Britain as well as the United States.
Source Reference