Today, a Times journalist outed the Police blogger ‘Nightjack’ when Mr Justice Eady cleared the way to do so after defying an injunction of disclosure of the blogger’s identity.
Iain Dale covered the story earlier and one of his commenters put the Eady J judgment up in segments. I provide the URL because the comments section on that post give a flavour of reaction to Eady J’s judgment.
Briefly: Night Jack was a serving Police Officer in Lancashire. He has been disciplined by his Force. (BBC) The issue about being a serving Police officer is not, as it happens, important to the issue of whether an anonymous blogger, commenter, ranter is entitled to the protection of the law in keeping his or identity secret.
This Mr Justice Eady makes clear: “When I move, therefore, to the second stage, the exercise becomes somewhat artificial. That is because I have to proceed on the hypothesis that one or more public interest considerations have to be identified which would be capable of outweighing the Claimant’s right to privacy – when I have already held that no such right exists.”
So the issue for all bloggers, commenters, users of discussion boards etc etc seems to be this: Do you have a right to protect your anonymity in law should someone discover your identity, through lawful means, and then reveal it to the world at large?
The answer is NO.
Mr Justice Eady makes this clear: “…..Those who wish to hold forth to the public by this means often take steps to disguise their authorship, but it is in my judgment a significantly further step to argue, if others are able to deduce their identity, that they should be restrained by law from revealing it.”
That seems to be it… in a nutshell. It is ironic for two reasons:
1. Journalists have gone to jail rather than reveal a source – yet now seem to be outing bloggers, who, it seems are not (always) journalists.
2. Names of judges found guilty of misconduct to stay secret
• Straw wins four-year battle to keep identities hidden
• Challenge by Guardian rejected by tribunal
Guardian
There is no such thing as real anonymity – the disclosure of identity can be compelled by law in several situations. I’m not over bothered about whether someone is or is not anonymous. I used to keep the game of anonymity going long after I outed myself. Some anonymous bloggers even get pissed and publish information about their identity on Twitter in error – which is always amusing.
I am pretty relaxed about commenters being anonymous on my blog. It depends whether I like what they say or not when they post anonymously. But, it is, after all my blog. I tend to leave anonymous comments up unless they are trying to persuade my readers to buy dodgy porn, viagra or how to improve their law practyices – in which case I delete when I find them. I would also block an anonymous commenter if they were being abusive to another commenter. Reasoned argument always sails through, even if anonymous.
There are law bloggers in the States who have adopted a NO Anonymity policy. That is their right and privilege. Sometimes, however, a blogger wishes to be anonymous because they wish to share information without being seen as the source. I can’t really see any problem with that.
Prats who go around acting big on blog comment sections or discussion boards, being hurtful to others, are just tedious. Their abusve comments have absolutely no value. If they wish to be critical or abusive – have they got the courage to say that to someone’s face or in print using their true identity? I suspect not in many such cases. They are thus revealed as cowards and their comments discredited accordingly.
Finally – I will say this. I enjoy reading blogs written by anonymous bloggers. They are either completely off the wall – anonymity allowing rants and a degree of amusing bad behaviour. Anonymous bloggers are rarely abusive to anyone not in the public eye and it is clear to even the meanest intelligence that more often than not their intention is to amuse, entertain and comment through satire or parody. (If they pick on those who cannot defend themselves, I suspect the blogging community would not be that impressed).
I enjoyed reading NightJack’s blog. He gave us a valuable and interesting insight into policing in this country – which is in our, the public’s, interest. As far as I know there is no suggestion he did anything illegal, nor did he compromise the identity of anyone he commented on. Frances Gibb in The Times does, however, state… “In April Mr Horton was awarded the Orwell Prize for political writing, but the judges were not aware that he was revealing confidential details about cases, some involving sex offences against children, that could be traced back to genuine prosecutions.
I can’t comment on that – but is it that likely that anyone would spend endless hours trying to do that? I doubt it – but I am happy to be told otherwise.
I’m not particularly impressed with The Times for doing this. I think it was a piece of banal journalism and I hope that it will earn The Times and that journalist a degree of critical publicity. They have a right to investigate – but the story has the whiff of traditional journalists becoming jealous of non-traditional bloggers who are getting bigger audiences. I don’t like that smell much. I thought The Times was above that sort of thing.
“I used to keep the game of anonymity going long after I outed myself.”
Do you regard yourself as Charonqc, or do you regard Charonqc as a fictional character created by Mike (apologies I’m not sure of your surname) X?
I regard most anonymous bloggers as a fictional characters created by their blog owners; for instance, I don’t regard Geeklawyer as being anything representative of the barrister who created him.
Just as Poirot is a creation of Christie; the only difference being the medium.
Charon,
‘I consider that the Claimant fails at stage one, because blogging is essentially a public rather than a private activity. ‘
This seems to me, a non-lawyer, to confuse the activity of writing the blog (which is carried out in private and anonymously) with its output (which is transmitted publicly).
If a source divulges information to me in confidence I will protect that source no matter what.
I cannot find fault with the Times journalist nor with the Times nor with Eady J’s judgment.
Jailhouselawyer…
I think Eady is right… I can’t really see this outing as overhwlmingly in the public interest… Nightjack provided an interesting insight….
What of other bloggers who are anonymous but who disguise things…. so as to comment… plenty of them about. Should they be outed? I don’t think so.
Information given in confidence should always remain confidential – although I would probably have made an exception if Hitler or Stalin told me what they planning ‘In confidence’… if you get my drift!
Tweeted you Osama Bin Shoppin post… that was good?
Are you on titter? If not… why not? (If you don’t mind my asking?)
If you are on Twitter.. let me know… in fact, I’ll have a look under Jailhouselawyer now…
I am on Twitter.
Yes, Eady J, is right. However, in the Guardian case I believe withholding on judges who have found to have broken the rules is wrong. Perhaps, the Guardian will seek a JR on the basis of this case?
Jailhouselawyer
Thanks. twitter was down for maintenance earlier.. have just found you and followed.
Hmmm. I need to think about all of this, both Scott Greenfield and Dan Hull on anonymous wusses and more importantly, this case.
I remain anonymous on my blog (or rather the blog I run) as do a number of the other authors.
For me, it was a leftover of the history oif the blog. When I started it was self-protection. Now, who I am is out – not by my doing, I was outed – and in circulation amongst those in the field, and I don’t have a job related fear of revelation, thankfully, so the reason for anonymity (mine and the others) on the blog has changed – it is now about being, or seeming independent – not pushing a particular firm or chambers. This is quite important for the feel of the blog, even if some readers know who I am. Plus, to be honest, we avoid getting chased by loonies to represent them 😉
Sources – yes, people need to trust that I’m not going to shop them, even inadvertently. A couple of my frequent informants could be in a very difficult position, so my view is that if I use that material, I owe them confidentiality, pretty much come what may. I’d argue the journalistic exemption there.
I don’t, as a matter of principal, deal with anything on the blog about which I have a professional duty of confidentality. I don’t think there is anything there I would be ashamed to put my real name to (and my name is out there in the sector), but I’m not wholly happy with Eady’s judgment, on first view.
I’ll have to consider this and maybe do a post myself.
NL – I have no problem with anything I post, so I don’ t need anonymity – but I have always respected confidentiality.
When I ran a law school I received a lot of confidential information – from colleagues, students, clients – in one ear and stayed there. Quite a task to ensure that I did not inadvertantly use the information the confidants wanted me to know without compromising them.
That, however, is something many people face in life and lawyers, perhaps, more so than others?
I don’t want to see a law of privacy develop in this country restrictive of free speech, a law to protect the fragile vanity of celebrities – Thankfully, there is good law to deal with those who defame others, breach commercial secrets, commit crimes, claim expenses for duck islands and moats….
The last thing I would wish to see in our country is a law of privacy which prevents investigation of those who act in public and whose activities affect others in a serious way. Press and other criticial scrutiny is an important spur to compliance?
By the same token… this is why I would defend Mosley’s right to a private life and respect him for protecting his rights. His private life is his own. I wonder how many journalists can say, hand on heart, that their private lives are ‘beyond reproach’… The issue is when those who take on public work act in a way in private which causes harm to others. It is an old jurisprudential – Benthamite – position… but true to this day?
Where, however, a person hides behind anonymity and inflicts harm on others – that is a different matter..
Lawyers now, of course, face very different duties of confidentiality from days gone by – money laundering law, terrorism law… but an example? Are priests still given full protection from revelation?
Eady is, to some, the devil (See the nonsense being written about his judgment on political and other blogs tonight) … and he is certainly in a deep blue sea when it comes to his judgments.
Eady J must be the most cited judge in England & Wales at the moment. I have started to read all his judgments (in so far as I can find them) – so far, most interesting….
I don’t think many, to be fair, would relish his seat on the bench – he is certainly not an anonymous judge… he is very much in the spotlight.
Ask the average lawyer to name 20 High Court judges and 10 CA judges… they would struggle… I suspect! (Barristers, possibly, apart – but they do tend to keep an eye on who is doing what in terms of career and may know these judges for that reason rather than their judgments? )…
Ask a member of the public to name a judge these days? … I think they would get four at best… and Lord Judge would probably not be one of them…. yet…
Law… as far as newspapers are concerned, is showbiz now? The story is more important than the law…
Is it my imagination … or is analysis in the press about law / cases/ issues etc… less precise than once it was?
I always look for comment from a blogger first before I go to the newspapers…
“The last thing I would wish to see in our country is a law of privacy which prevents investigation of those who act in public and whose activities affect others in a serious way.”
Ironically I think we’re going full circle back round to the right of free expression, i.e. whether the lack of protection of anonymity inhibits the freedom of bloggers to post what they will.
After glancing at the case I’m leaning towards agreeing with the judgement (at law) because I don’t think we have any law sufficiently developed to protect a blogger’s anonymity. A British privacy law, as you say, remains a long way off (especially for someone on a Police Officer’s salary).
Anonymity in bloggers is something that I do not have a problem with at all and I enjoy reading a number of blogs written by people who are anonymous. It is however something that I have been meaning to write a blog post on for some time – I don’t write anonymously – I feel I should explain (at the very least to myself) why.
An angle to this I found interesting was the tweet by Girlwithaonetrackmind, also outed by the (sunday?)Times
“Someone’s posted a comment on my blog stating Judge Eady’s home address. I shan’t be publishing it; unlike Eady, I respect people’s privacy.”