Wikileaks exposes Vic court's gag order

Wikileaks has exposed a secretive suppression order issued by a Victorian court that relates to an international political corruption case.

The whistleblower website on Wednesday published the full text of the Victorian Supreme Court order made on June 19, with the information shared widely on social networking sites.

Australian media organisations cannot legally publish the contents of the order, which was made to prevent damage to the country's international relations.

Social media users may also land themselves in legal hot water if they share the suppression order and any information detailed in it.

Anyone who tweets a link to the report, posts it on Facebook, or shares it in anyway online could be in breach, legal experts warn.

Wikileaks claims the gag order effectively blacks out the largest high-level corruption case in Australia and the region.

The anti-secrecy group's founder, Julian Assange, called it the worst suppression order in "living memory".

"The Australian government is not just gagging the Australian press it is blindfolding the Australian public," he said in a statement.

"It is in the public interest for the press to be able to report on this case."

Continue reading here:
Wikileaks exposes Vic court's gag order

Julian Assange, Wikileaks publisher, described the Victorian Supreme Court suppression order as 'unprecedented'.

Social media users could land themselves in legal hot water if they share Wikileaks' reporting of a secret suppression order made by the Victorian Supreme Court.

The wide-ranging suppression order was published on the group's website on Wednesday and was quickly shared on websites including Twitter and Google+.

Fairfax Media's report of Wikileaks' action created a strong response on social media, and was shared thousands of times within minutes of the exclusive report's publication.

It is against the law for Australian media organisations to publish the contents of the suppression order.

Advertisement

Media lawyer Peter Bartlett, from Minter Ellison, said anyone who tweets a link to the Wikileaks report, posts it on Facebook, or shares it in any way online could also face charges.

Using a hashtag such as "Wikileaks" is not in breach of the order but any mention on social media of the information detailed in it, such as people's names, is banned.

Mr Bartlett said it would be difficult to prosecute Wikileaks and its publisher, Julian Assange, given they are outside Victoria. Mr Assange remains at the Ecuador embassy in London where he has been given political asylum to avoid being extradited to the United States in relation to the leaking of secret US documents.

However, any Victorian social media users, or the person who gave the documents to Wikileaks, may be easier to find and prosecute.

Read more:
Social media users could be charged for sharing Wikileaks story

WikiLeaks revelation of a Victorian Court gag order recalls that the overuse of such orders can be defeated by the threat of online exposure.

The penchant of Victorian courts for throwing suppression orders around like confetti came unstuck overnight with WikiLeaks publishing an injunction by the Victorian Supreme Court. Victorian courts have a history of being willing to issue gag orders.

The revelation is reminiscent of the running battle between sites like WikiLeaks, social media, British MPs and UK courts up until 2011. Superinjunctions developed as a legal manoeuvre exploiting the British Human Right Act 1998, which established a right to privacy binding on government bodies, and were frequently used by celebrities anxious to prevent the feral UK tabloids from revealing private information. However, large companies began using them as well, as a superinjunction prevented even the reporting of the existence of an injunction. WikiLeaks was one of the organisations to out the multinational company Trafigura, which had used a superinjunction to prevent mainstream revelations of its dumping of toxic waste in Africa. London law firm Carter-Ruck became notorious for its use of superinjunctions, but badly overplayed its hand on Trafigura when it tried to use them to ban reporting of parliamentary questions about Trafigura, leading to a social media backlash.

Carter-Ruck was also humiliated when its efforts to sue Twitter on behalf of Premier League philanderer Ryan Giggs for breach of a superinjunction led to a Twitter frenzy about Giggs and former lover Imogen Thomas. Liberal Democrat MP John Hemming, who had campaigned against superinjunctions, then named him in Parliament. At one point, a British court issued what was dubbed a hyperinjunction which prevented a person from revealing any information about a legal case to anyone at all, privately or publicly.

However, the use of superinjunctions in the UK has now fallen dramaticallyin fact, virtually to zeroand in the view of one UK lawyer, directly as a result of the likelihood of online exposure. The Victorian order isnt quite a superinjunction, but it is sweeping nonetheless, and identifying the individuals it refers to is prohibited. And the same Streisand Effect is at work, particularly given the casual invocation of national security as the basis for the injunction.

The success of WikiLeaks, online activists and social media in making UK superinjunctions so dangerous that potential users have shied away from using them suggests that, if Victorian courts wont stop infantilising the population by insisting on determining it can and cant know, potential users of gag orders might work out that injunctions can be more trouble than theyre worth.

See the rest here:
WikiLeaks reveals (not so) superinjunction

Ecuador President Mulls Taking Assange Case to UN Court 23:25 29/10/2013

Ecuadors president said Tuesday that sending the case of WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange to a United Nations court was under consideration.

Ecuadorian Foreign Minister Ricardo Patino said British authorities were making a big mistake by not letting Julian Assange, founder of the whistleblowing organization WikiLeaks, out of the Ecuadorian Embassy in London.

Whistleblowing website WikiLeaks has published online a huge new batch of 1.7 million classified US records, including diplomatic and intelligence reports from the years 1973 to 1976, the website reported on Monday.

WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange, sheltering inside Ecuadors embassy in London, should not remain there any longer as his health condition might begin worsening, his lawyer Baltasar Garzon said.

WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange sheltering inside Ecuadors embassy in London demonstrated his living and working conditions to journalists, The Daily Mail reported on Sunday.

Ecuador may ask the British authorities to allow the transfer of WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange from its embassy in London to Sweden where he could respond to alleged sex charges against him, Foreign Minister Ricardo Patino said.

Ecuadorian President Rafael Correa said on Saturday there is no more threat to his countrys embassy in London, where Wikileaks founder Julian Assange has been granted asylum.

Hackers have launched a spate of cyber attacks on British government websites to protest WikiLeaks founder Julian Assanges extradition to Sweden, Sky News reported on Tuesday.

Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez threatened London with radical measures in case British authorities attempt to break into the Embassy of Ecuador to arrest WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange

See the original post here:
Wikileaks founder Julian Assange case

Wikileaks Impact on Public Policy and Journalism
Wikileaks: Impact on Public Policy and Journalism Moderated by: Bob Schieffer Chief Washington Correspondent, CBS News; Anchor, CBS News? ?Face the Nation? P...

By: Center for Strategic International Studies

Here is the original post:
Wikileaks Impact on Public Policy and Journalism - Video

A Swedish court will hold a public hearing to determine if an arrest warrant against WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange for alleged sexual assault should be dropped.

A decision to cancel the warrant would be a step towards enabling the 43-year-old Australian to walk out of the Ecuadorian embassy in London, where he has been holed up for the past two years in a bid to avoid extradition to Sweden.

The Stockholm District Court will open at 2100 AEST on Wednesday to review the arrest warrant, issued in late 2010, for incidents of rape and sexual molestation that allegedly took place that year - claims Assange denies.

Assange sought refuge in Ecuador's embassy in Britain in June 2012 after having exhausted all legal options at British courts to avoid being extradited to Sweden.

He has said he fears that being sent to Sweden would be a pretext for transferring him to the US, where WikiLeaks sparked an uproar with its publication of thousands of secret documents.

WikiLeaks repeatedly drove the global news agenda with startling revelations of the behind-the-scenes activities of governments across the world.

From confidential assessments by US diplomats of Chinese leaders to revised body counts in Iraq, the WikiLeaks documents provided the public with an unprecedented look under the hood of international politics.

Assange's legal team has argued that Swedish prosecutors have dragged out the case unreasonably long by not interviewing him at the embassy.

'We are confident about the hearing,' Assange's lawyer, Thomas Olsson, told AFP. 'We think we have very strong arguments for the court to overrule the original decision.'

Camilla Murray, chief administrator at the court, said a decision in favour of Assange would mean that a European arrest warrant against him will be immediately cancelled.

Go here to see the original:
Swedish court to decide Assange's fate

A Swedish court has upheld an arrest warrant against WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange for alleged sexual assault.

Wednesday's decision is a setback for 43-year-old Assange, who has been holed up at the Ecuadoran embassy in London for more than two years in a bid to avoid extradition to Sweden.

At the hearing in Stockholm District Court, prosecutors demanded that the warrant, issued in late 2010, should be upheld.

Assange's defence team, which had maintained that the investigation had taken an unreasonably long time, said it would appeal the decision, according to Swedish news agency TT.

As a result of the ruling, Assange will remain at the Ecuadoran embassy in London fearing extradition to the United States, said defence lawyer Per Samuelson, quoted by TT.

The warrant was issued over allegations of rape and sexual molestation which Assange has denied.

The WikiLeaks founder sought refuge in Ecuador's embassy in Britain in June, 2012 after exhausting all legal options in British courts to avoid being extradited to Sweden.

He has said he fears that his being sent to Sweden would be a pretext for his transfer to the United States, where WikiLeaks sparked an uproar with its publication of thousands of secret documents.

WikiLeaks repeatedly drove the global news agenda with startling revelations of the behind-the-scenes activities of governments around the world, including confidential assessments by US diplomats of Chinese leaders and revised body counts in Iraq.

Assange's legal team had argued that Swedish prosecutors have dragged out the case for an unreasonably long period by not interviewing him at the embassy.

The rest is here:
Swedish court upholds Assange warrant

SecureDrop: A WikiLeaks in Every Newsroom

By: Freedom of the Press Foundation

Here is the original post:
SecureDrop: A WikiLeaks in Every Newsroom - Video

A Swedish court on Wednesday upheld its detention order on Julian Assange, reaffirming the legal basis for an international warrant for the WikiLeaks founder, which has kept him hiding in the Ecuadorean Embassy in London for two years.

One of Mr. Assanges defence lawyers, Per Samuelson, said they would study the judges decision in detail and then write a juicy, toxic appeal to a higher court.

Our legal arguments are solid and powerful, Mr. Samuelson told the Associated Press. That they didnt work could be because the judge didnt give herself enough time to think.

Last month, Mr. Assanges lawyers filed a court petition to repeal the detention order imposed by the Stockholm district court in November, 2010 on the grounds that it cannot be enforced while he is at the embassy and because it is restricting Mr. Assanges civil rights.

Mr. Assange has not been formally indicted in Sweden, but he is wanted for questioning by police over allegations of sexual misconduct and rape involving two women he met during a visit to the Scandinavian country in 2010. He denies the allegations.

Swedish prosecutors have ruled out the possibility of questioning him in London.

Julian Assange is evading justice by seeking refuge at Ecuadors embassy, lead prosecutor Marianne Ny said. He needs to make himself available in Sweden for remaining investigative measures and a potential trial.

Even if Sweden had dropped its case against Mr. Assange, he would face immediate arrest by British police for violating his bail conditions when he fled officials and sought refuge at the embassy. Police have maintained a constant presence outside the embassy since then.

In a meeting last month with reporters at the embassy to mark his second year of hiding, Mr. Assange said he had no intention of going to Sweden because he has no guarantees he wouldnt subsequently be sent to the U.S., where an investigation into WikiLeaks dissemination of hundreds of thousands of classified U.S. documents remains live.

In a video link during the meeting, he also talked to Ecuadorean Foreign Minister Ricardo Patino, who told journalists that negotiations with Britain over Mr. Assanges fate were at an impasse and that there would be no attempt to force him back to Sweden.

Continue reading here:
Swedish court upholds detention order on WikiLeaks founder ...

Stockholm: A Swedish court began a hearing on Wednesday to determine if an arrest warrant against WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange for alleged sexual assault should be dropped.

A decision to cancel the warrant would be a step towards enabling the 43-year-old Australian to walk out of the Ecuadoran embassy in London, where he has been holed up for the past two years in a bid to avoid extradition to Sweden.

Prosecutors demanded that the warrant should be upheld, Swedish news agency TT reported.

But Assanges lawyer Thomas Olsson said it should be repealed with immediate effect, TT said, adding that the proceedings continued behind closed doors.

The warrant was issued in late 2010 for incidents of rape and sexual molestation that allegedly took place that year claims Assange denies.

Assange sought refuge in Ecuadors embassy in Britain in June 2012 after having exhausted all legal options at British courts to avoid being extradited to Sweden.

He has said he fears that being sent to Sweden would be a pretext for transferring him to the United States, where WikiLeaks sparked an uproar with its publication of thousands of secret documents.

WikiLeaks repeatedly drove the global news agenda with startling revelations of the behind-the-scenes activities of governments around the world.

From confidential assessments by US diplomats of Chinese leaders to revised body counts in Iraq, the WikiLeaks documents provided the public with an unprecedented look under the hood of international politics.

Assanges legal team has argued that Swedish prosecutors have dragged out the case for an unreasonably long period by not interviewing him at the embassy.

View original post here:
Swedish court hears Assange bid to drop arrest warrant