“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.”

http://twitter.com/girlonetrack

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.

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…

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.

Thanks. twitter was down for maintenance earlier.. have just found you and followed.

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?

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 cannot find fault with the Times journalist nor with the Times nor with Eady J’s judgment.

‘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).

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.