Hmmmm. This story is interesting to me. Was the ruling because the blogger was an insider, and violating the rules? Or, was the ruling applicable to us all?
Thousands of bloggers who operate behind the cloak of anonymity have no right to keep their identities secret, the High Court ruled today
In a landmark decision, Mr Justice Eady refused to grant an order to protect the anonymity of a police officer who is the author of a blog called NightJack.
11 Comments
June 16, 2009 at 2:00 pm
Interesting to me as well. I’m wondering if this is just because it’s interfering (perhaps) with the judicial system. But at least it’s not in the US which is slightly comforting, if only slightly. We may still have our rights.
June 17, 2009 at 9:31 pm
Remember, Mt. Laurel, members of the SCOUS have said “we” should be looking at the laws of other nations when making rulings.
June 16, 2009 at 2:02 pm
I couldn’t gt a good read on your question, myself. As nearly as I could make out, the court is saying him, specifically, as an active policeman and, by implication, every blogger.
Scary!
June 16, 2009 at 2:45 pm
I’m all for protecting anonymity, and maybe if had been more discreet he’d still be blogging anonymously. My take is that the more someone incorporates details about his/her job, personal life, etc., the greater the chance someone else will discover the person’s identity.
I don’t see this as chilling anyone’s rights here, but I think it’s a good reminder that there are consequences to what we bloggers post. Thanks for sharing!
June 16, 2009 at 7:31 pm
I have mixed feelings.
Doing what I do for a living- I could blow holes right through the privacy of others and it would be unfair to allow me to do so under the cover of an anonymous moniker. (I wouldn’t do that to any of my clients BTW- for one it would be entirely unprofessional, for two I actually care about the people I serve and wouldn’t violate their trust for anything.)
On the other hand, I don’t think people like my employers have any business knowing what I do online- so long as I don’t violate anyone’s privacy rights. Elvis Drinkmo and the guy who shows up for work everyday are two entirely different people (as those who have met me in person will testify to).
Frankly, I think these rights should be on a case by case basis. But we all know what a slippery slope that could prove to be.
June 17, 2009 at 1:03 pm
“Frankly, I think these rights should be on a case by case basis.”
I agree. For folks such as whistle-blowers or people in potentially threatening situations anonymity should be protected.
But for the average Joe anonymity usually just means the ability to be as offensive and hateful as they want.
June 17, 2009 at 9:47 pm
No, no, no. The Constitution gives our citizens free speech. The SCOUS has ruled that includes “offensive and hateful” speech.
When I began this blog, I was a government employee. My political opinions could have caused me problems. Not because they were illegal, but because so many mid to high level government employees play the political game. Now that I do my own thing, I could reveal myself, but … this is too much fun.
June 16, 2009 at 7:32 pm
that should read “people like my employers don’t have any business……”
June 17, 2009 at 8:56 am
Well, Muze, I guess it won’t be long before people learn your true identity: Joe Manchin.
June 17, 2009 at 9:40 pm
Open for business baby. Open for business.
June 17, 2009 at 10:47 pm
I’ve said it before and I’ll say it again – if you really think you can preserve your anonymity online, you’re fooling yourself. The issue of whether it’s a slimy thing to do to out an anonymous blogger (I think it is) is completely separate from whether it’s legal to do so (which I also think it is).