Media notes for Friday, April 26, 2013:

South Africa pushed through contentious legislation Thursday that restricts access to information and imposes fines and penalties including jail time for journalists who publish what the government considers secrets. The Guardian notes there is widespread agreement that the bill's onerous measures have been reduced in the five-year debate since it was proposed, but critics believe there remains discretion for the government to curtail press freedom. Some see it as the first erosion of democracy since apartheid was eliminated in the country nearly two decades ago.

The English-language Egypt Independent closed abruptly Thursday. The New York TImes reports that the site, one of the most aggressive in chronicling political change in the country, was experiencing financial difficulties that investors said could not be surmounted. But it also notes that its staff believes there was a political motive in the closure because of the site's criticism of the president and the Muslim Brotherhood. That observation is shared in a commentary on Tahrir Squared.

A new law in England and Wales makes it tougher to sue. The New York Times reports that the bill passed Thursday does not switch the burden of proof from the defendant, but it offers some provisions to strengthen their position. They can, for instance, claim the information was published in good faith and that it was in the public interest. The bill also is aimed at reducing "libel tourism," in which people chose England as a litigation venue even when publicity of the information was minor there.

Public access to government information in Canada is defined by the laws at a federal, provincial and municipal level that assert public rights to disclosure. There are many exceptions to these rights and, more than three decades into the laws, there are few legal precedents to clarify the degree of rights.

For journalists, these laws fuel conduct in the field. They guide the degree to which journalists can claim records should be publicly disclosed. Canada's laws are largely considered outmoded in an era of greater pressure for institutional electronic release of records.

This week the Supreme Court of Canada declined to pronounce freedom of information as a constitutional right. Chief Justice Beverly McLachlin and Justice Rosalie Abella wrote in their decision that there is no "general right" to access to information.

The ruling does leave open the possibility to strengthen rights, though. It said future appeals might be able to argue that certain suppression of information constitutes an abrogation of free speech rights under the Charter of Rights and Freedoms.

The federal Justice Minister, Rob Nicholson, answered a House of Commons committee's report on broadening the law granting access to government information quite clearly today.

No way, he said.

The law is a delicate instrument and the proposed changes from then-information commissioner John Reid would require extensive consultation or widen the mission of the Access to Information Act. Instead, the government proposes to continue its review of policies and roles in implementing them.

As a frequent user and critic of the act, I do not feel professionally bound to restrain my observation of the government's response today. One would hope it is out of step with public expectations and information practices (although there are not placards and protests calling for more public records).

A more cynical observer would suggest that, like all governments before it, this one prefers a tight lid on information taxpayers have financed to avoid substantial scrutiny of policies and functions. Its only effort to change the law has been minor in nature to add some Crown corporations and parliamentary administrative records to the institutions subject to it.

The law was created in 1983, before the Internet, before even Post-It Notes. Since its inception, significant reform has come but once, in the wake of the 9/11 security fears, when it was made even more restrictive. The electronic production (and destruction) of records has proceeded relatively unfettered.

The law has never been a reporter's true friend. It is a better tool of history than of journalism. It is cumbersome and costly to use, and there are hundreds of exemptions to withhold from release material that ought to be in the public realm.

But reporters are not entirely blameless, either. Very few press governments for the release of records. Of the universe of applicants, journalists comprise less than 15 per cent.

Organizations like the Canadian Newspaper Association, the Canadian Association of Journalists and many media companies have sought a stronger legal culture to permit greater access to information.

In the changing environment of newsrooms, there remains a strong need for unique material. The information laws can be large enablers of exclusive content. But today the federal government kept the door closed to any open-sourced approach on record-keeping.