All these things may be true, but even then, at least he was there at the Assange trial. No other source was a as diligent or up to date with their reporting, even if it was biased.
Even if you believe all these bad things about him, I don't believe someone should be jailed for reporting in general. In specific, I don't see how the facts support a conviction - the way the argument for "jigsaw" identification of witnesses was used could apply to any and all reporting about a court case. No reasonable standard was used (in my opinion).
Do you think it's alright to put someone in jail because you don't like them?
Well, it seemed implied to me. The original post was about Craig Murray being sent to jail. There are other comments in this thread coming out in support of (or at least against the imprisonment of) Murray.
Then, the parent comment comes out, listing a whole bunch of reasons not to like Murray, or at least not to support him. So the implication, as I see it, is that the parent commenter is alright with Murray going to jail.
Maybe you're right and that I read too much into it. However, I'd like to resolve this part that's unclear - does the parent commenter support putting Murray in jail? Is it because they don't like him?
I ignored this because I considered it a disingenuous question, but maybe I should tackle it instead because this sort of misrepresentation is poisonous.
No, I obviously do not think "it's alright to put someone in jail because you don't like them". There's no reasonable way to construe that from what I said.
I think the intent of my comment was clearly to express surprise that people take him seriously as a commentator; as someone who has been unfortunately very aware of his views for a long time, it seems obvious to me that he is an unreliable narrator and any information he presents is something we should be extremely skeptical of.
I do think that it can be acceptable to imprison people for contempt of court. I am pretty familiar with the case in question, and I have no reason to think that any conspiracy was required in order to convict him. I watched him do the things he's been convicted for as they happened, and his intent seemed reasonably clear.
So yes, to answer your direct question – I do "support" putting Murray in jail, in the sense that he appears to have received a fair trial for committing a crime, and I don't see any evidence that his conviction was unexpected or unreasonable.
Spinning this as me saying "it's alright to put someone in jail because you don't like them" is obviously a bad-faith representation.
Even if you believe all these bad things about him, I don't believe someone should be jailed for reporting in general. In specific, I don't see how the facts support a conviction - the way the argument for "jigsaw" identification of witnesses was used could apply to any and all reporting about a court case. No reasonable standard was used (in my opinion).
Do you think it's alright to put someone in jail because you don't like them?