It is an unprecedented case. And it risks triggering an unprecedented threat to journalism. The UK police have repeatedly tried to obtain the passwords to the phones of the British independent journalist, Richard Medhurst, the first reporter arrested in London under Section 12: his analyses and comments on Israel’s bloodbath in Gaza – which Amnesty International has characterised as genocide – have been interpreted by the police as support for organisations banned from the UK, such as Hamas and Hezbollah.
The British journalists’ union, the NUJ, and the International Federation of Journalists (IFJ) publicly condemned his arrest and the use of anti-terrorism laws against journalists “simply for carrying out their work”.
None of that has anything to do with the case at hand though, and I don’t understand why you would bring it up. This bad law is being abused and just because you don’t like the person being targeted in this specific instance, it will just be a matter of time before it’s used to target journalists that you like.
I understand that ultimately argued against what the government is doing to him, but I think all the other information you posted (with no sources at all by the way) is not relevant at all and just a pointless distraction.
I was agreeing with the sentiment that privacy is paramount. On this instance, I’m literally on his side, despite him being a pro-Russia/Assad/China tankie. A political persuasion that I find utterly evil and repulsive.
The point of bringing it up was that even if you don’t like someone or what they stand for, they should still have rights, such as the right to privacy. To me it’s inalienable.