We remain alone in the civilised world a the only democracy without a bill of irrevocable rights, albeit some states Victoria and Queensland have enacted their own versions!

We need a bill of rights that guarantees freedom of expression/speech, the freedom of the press to report the unvarnished truth if it passes a bona fide public interest test.

And where such public interest involves ethical whistle blows, their right to reveal in the public interest, must be protected within an irrevocable bill of rights.

It cannot be as in China, a privilege that can be withdrawn on any half-baked excuse at the minister's capricious whimsical discretion!

That said such a bill cannot be used to overturn or discredit contractual obligations entered into by fully informed and in mutual agreement, parties!
Alan B.

The author recognises he has covered a vast range of leak cases that vastly differ in severity and necessarily differ in laws deemed broken.

Talking about law breaking, most OLO articles on Assange/Wikileaks/Manning/Snowden have been by weak-left authors who know little of what they write. Further, they refuse to compare Western treatment of leak-defectors with much harsher, fatal, Chinese and Russian treatment.

So the author is refreshingly right in writing:

"It is a mistake to think all leaks to the media are worthy and in the public interest.

The industrial scale leaks of US military data facilitated by Wikileaks, and Snowden and Manning (which have verged on espionage but would be termed "whistle-blowing" by the Left in Australia) were very damaging to US intelligence.

They most likely cost lives and endangered operations.

Such recklessness underlines the case for opposing liberal "whistle-blowing" laws backed by unfettered journalistic privilege."

As the Witness K. case is before the courts one cannot draw a comparison.

Pete, you are at it again, making up stories to make yourself sound authoritative.

No lives were lost due to data releases by Wikileaks or Snowden or Manning.

Being a reservist you like most of them fall into the old category of the ‘need to be needed’. Don’t let your writing suffer the same fate.

Wie geht es Binoy, meinem Freund Gujarati Galen? Ich vertraue darauf, dass Sie beide bei guter Gesundheit sind?

Grüße

Pete

What'd that bloke in movie say "You can't handle the truth !".

Contractual obligations include putting your John Handcock on the official secrets act and swearing on a holy book to keep official state secrets to yourself/take them to your grave!

And if you sign a contract giving your informed consent to those conditions, you haven't a leg to stand on if you later violate that lawful, contractual, obligation

This is vastly different from cabinet confidentiality, where for patent pernicious political reasons some less than ethical politicians may want to keep certain facts, that the public should know, from them!

And where such facts are leaked, possibly by one or more of the more ethical, members of the political party and in the bona fide public interest or right to know!

Then the leakers/whistleblowers ought to have some protection in law. And that's why we need a conclusive bill of irrevocable rights, not privileges handed out or summarily withdrawn at the whim of a capricious minster!

If only to protect the righteous from the scum that want to rule/possess the world!

And very different from, reveal all strategies, that violate personal privacy ( Rusian's/Putin's Assange) or just done without validation for sensationalism or financial gain!? (Russian operative Assange) Putting real lives at real risk or forfeit!

Or because those involved are little better than, Benedict Arnold Quislings, ( Russian operative Snowden) working as traitors against the state and their fellow citizens? Such folk deserve to be put up against a brick wall and executed, in the traditonal manner, by a firing squad!
Alan B.