Julian Assange: 'The Australian government is not just gagging the press, it is blindfolding the public.' Photo: AFP

EXCLUSIVE

WikiLeaks has struck again, releasing the text of a secret court order that cannot be published in Australia.

The anti-secrecy group has this morning published a Victorian Supreme Court suppression order that WikiLeaks publisher Julian Assange describes asunprecedented in scope.

The suppression order is itself suppressed. No Australian media organisation can legally publish the document or its contents.

Advertisement

In a statement provided to Fairfax Media, Assange said it was completely egregious to block the public's right to know and suppress the media in any instance, and especially in cases of international corruption involving politicians and subsidiaries of a public organisation.

Despite the legal implications WikiLeaks publishes this suppression order, as it will others, to uphold our values of freedom of information and transparency of government - the Australian people have a right to know, we work to ensure this right for them, even when their government tries to obstruct it."

WikiLeaks suggests there has not been a comparable blanket suppression order since 1995 when the Australian government sought to suppress publication by Fairfax Media of details of a joint US-Australian espionage operation to bug a new Chinese embassy in Canberra.

Assange argues that the suppression order, together with the Australian government's recent introduction of legislation to criminalise reporting on certain types of intelligence operations, is part of an increasing trend in Australia of suppressing press freedoms for the sake of politics".

Continue reading here:
WikiLeaks breaks court gag

Julian Assange: 'The Australian government is not just gagging the press, it is blindfolding the public.' Photo: AFP

EXCLUSIVE

WikiLeaks has struck again, releasing the text of a secret court order that cannot be published in Australia.

The anti-secrecy group has this morning published a Victorian Supreme Court suppression order that WikiLeaks publisher Julian Assange describes asunprecedented in scope.

The suppression order is itself suppressed. No Australian media organisation can legally publish the document or its contents.

Advertisement

In a statement provided to Fairfax Media, Assange said it was completely egregious to block the public's right to know and suppress the media in any instance, and especially in cases of international corruption involving politicians and subsidiaries of a public organisation.

Despite the legal implications WikiLeaks publishes this suppression order, as it will others, to uphold our values of freedom of information and transparency of government - the Australian people have a right to know, we work to ensure this right for them, even when their government tries to obstruct it."

WikiLeaks suggests there has not been a comparable blanket suppression order since 1995 when the Australian government sought to suppress publication by Fairfax Media of details of a joint US-Australian espionage operation to bug a new Chinese embassy in Canberra.

Assange argues that the suppression order, together with the Australian government's recent introduction of legislation to criminalise reporting on certain types of intelligence operations, is part of an increasing trend in Australia of suppressing press freedoms for the sake of politics".

Continued here:
WikiLeaks publishes 'unprecedented' secret Australian court suppression order

Julian Assange: 'The Australian government is not just gagging the press, it is blindfolding the public.' Photo: AFP

EXCLUSIVE

WikiLeaks has struck again, releasing the text of a secret court order that cannot be published in Australia.

The anti-secrecy group has this morning published a Victorian Supreme Court suppression order that WikiLeaks publisher Julian Assange describes asunprecedented in scope.

The suppression order is itself suppressed. No Australian media organisation can legally publish the document or its contents.

Advertisement

In a statement provided to Fairfax Media, Assange said it was completely egregious to block the public's right to know and suppress the media in any instance, and especially in cases of international corruption involving politicians and subsidiaries of a public organisation.

Despite the legal implications WikiLeaks publishes this suppression order, as it will others, to uphold our values of freedom of information and transparency of government - the Australian people have a right to know, we work to ensure this right for them, even when their government tries to obstruct it."

WikiLeaks suggests there has not been a comparable blanket suppression order since 1995 when the Australian government sought to suppress publication by Fairfax Media of details of a joint US-Australian espionage operation to bug a new Chinese embassy in Canberra.

Assange argues that the suppression order, together with the Australian government's recent introduction of legislation to criminalise reporting on certain types of intelligence operations, is part of an increasing trend in Australia of suppressing press freedoms for the sake of politics".

Read more here:
Court gag ignored by WikiLeaks

Julian Assange: 'The Australian government is not just gagging the press, it is blindfolding the public.' Photo: AFP

EXCLUSIVE

WikiLeaks has struck again, releasing the text of a secret court order that cannot be published in Australia.

The anti-secrecy group has this morning published a Victorian Supreme Court suppression order that WikiLeaks publisher Julian Assange describes asunprecedented in scope.

The suppression order is itself suppressed. No Australian media organisation can legally publish the document or its contents.

Advertisement

In a statement provided to Fairfax Media, Assange said it was completely egregious to block the public's right to know and suppress the media in any instance, and especially in cases of international corruption involving politicians and subsidiaries of a public organisation.

Despite the legal implications WikiLeaks publishes this suppression order, as it will others, to uphold our values of freedom of information and transparency of government - the Australian people have a right to know, we work to ensure this right for them, even when their government tries to obstruct it."

WikiLeaks suggests there has not been a comparable blanket suppression order since 1995 when the Australian government sought to suppress publication by Fairfax Media of details of a joint US-Australian espionage operation to bug a new Chinese embassy in Canberra.

Assange argues that the suppression order, together with the Australian government's recent introduction of legislation to criminalise reporting on certain types of intelligence operations, is part of an increasing trend in Australia of suppressing press freedoms for the sake of politics".

See the original post:
Court gag broken by WikiLeaks

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