Blogging - Courts will not protect anonyminity

**Rob** · 16-06-2009, 14:29

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/8103132.stm

A police officer who posts an award winning blog "Night Jack - An English Detective", can be outed by the Times after a court held he is not entitled to be anonymous.

Apparently it's in the public's interest for them to know who the author is so that they can then decide how authentic and experienced the post might be. That's despite the fact that naming the blogger could well affect his employment since blogs by their nature are often critical of policies.

The phrase "publish and be damned" comes to mind.

**Graham M** · 16-06-2009, 14:32

http://nightjack.wordpress.com/

Bang! Posts gone

BenMcr · 16-06-2009, 14:36

I noticed it is the same judge that seems to love celebrity privacy!

**Derek** · 16-06-2009, 14:37

Yep. He was one of the better Police bloggers and its a shame he disappeared.

From reading the posts I can't see anything that identified cases specifically or gave more away than the mainstream media. I can see a lot of insider bloggs disappearing in the coming months.

BenMcr · 16-06-2009, 14:37

Info on the Judge: http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/7719557.stm

lauzjp · 16-06-2009, 14:40

you can still access old posts by using the 'cached' option in google searches

or type this site:wordpress.com NightJack wordpress into the search box & then select the 'cached' option.

**Maggy J** · 16-06-2009, 14:41

So would be whistle-blowers yet again have another avenue closed to them...

gee thanks judge Eady, that's really served the public interest as it's another form of free speech trampled over.

Ah well it also means that papers like the Times have nothing to fear from anonymous journalistic stealing their journalistic thunder.

Chrysalis · 16-06-2009, 15:28

Quote:

Originally Posted by Rob

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/8103132.stm

A police officer who posts an award winning blog "Night Jack - An English Detective", can be outed by the Times after a court held he is not entitled to be anonymous.

Apparently it's in the public's interest for them to know who the author is so that they can then decide how authentic and experienced the post might be. That's despite the fact that naming the blogger could well affect his employment since blogs by their nature are often critical of policies.

The phrase "publish and be damned" comes to mind.

where is this blog, I googled and found a page saying this.

"The authors have deleted this blog. The content is no longer available"

Our stupid legal system has wrecked free speech?

punky · 16-06-2009, 15:36

Ludicrous descision - and the public that Justice Eady purports to represent will suffer for it.

If something is rotten the only way you'll know is from the inside looking out, not the other way round. If something needs to be outed, are we now going to have a queue of volunteers? Nope. We'll quite reasonably have a queue of people wanting to protect their job, pension and public reputation.

**Derek** · 16-06-2009, 17:34

Quote:

Originally Posted by Chrysalis

where is this blog, I googled and found a page saying this.

The author stopped posting a month or so ago stating he was spending more time writing a book. The blog was then pulled altogether about a bit later on, probably about the time the Times started taking an unhealthy interest in who Nightjack was.

**Damien** · 16-06-2009, 17:44

Why the hell does The Times even want to print this? We're not talking about the Mail here this is a respected paper!

punky · 16-06-2009, 18:10

Quote:

Originally Posted by Damien

Why the hell does The Times even want to print this? We're not talking about the Mail here this is a respected paper!

Yes, its a bit worrying when the press could be used as a weapon against people they have fallen out of favour with. Its almost like we're in a banana republic these days.

Toto · 16-06-2009, 18:10

What seems to be overlooked though is the fact that the judges decision can only have jurisdiction over UK based networks. I've not checked but I seem to remember that wordpress.com is not UK based.

punky · 16-06-2009, 18:24

Quote:

Originally Posted by Toto

What seems to be overlooked though is the fact that the judges decision can only have jurisdiction over UK based networks. I've not checked but I seem to remember that wordpress.com is not UK based.

I thought it was the other way around - the person doing the naming must be UK based, not the person being named?

---------- Post added at 19:24 ---------- Previous post was at 19:11 ----------

And no sooner has he been named, he's been 'disciplined'

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/8103731.stm

Its a quick bloody investigation. What, 2 whole hours worth? I notice they don't say what they think he said that had "fallen short of the standards of professional behaviour we expect of our police officers"

Toto · 16-06-2009, 18:47

Quote:

Originally Posted by punky

I thought it was the other way around - the person doing the naming must be UK based, not the person being named?

---------- Post added at 19:24 ---------- Previous post was at 19:11 ----------

Yes in this context you're absolutely right.