This week the High Court ruled that anonymous bloggers have no right to have their identities kept secret.
Richard Horton, a police officer in the Lancashire Constabulary, is the creator of the “NightJack – An English Detective” blog in which he gave his views on life as a police officer including descriptions of cases that could be traced back to genuine prosecutions. Mr Horton was awarded the Orwell Prize for political writing. The Times wanted to release information of Mr Horton’s identity so Mr Horton sought an injunction to stop the information being released.
Mr Horton had argued that it was in the public interest to keep his identity secret because if his name was released it would be apparent that he was referring to real cases and other individuals could be recognised from the blog. The judge decided it was in the public interest to release the information because, even though it may result in Mr Horton facing disciplinary action from the constabulary, it is important for the public to know who the blogger is so they can make a judgement on the value of the comments made about police affairs.
Do you think bloggers should be allowed to keep their identity secret?
Do think this ruling will act as a deterrent to employees when voicing their views on a blog?
Do you have experience of facing, or having to take, disciplinary action after an employee has made comments about their job or employer on a public blog?
Harriet Sutherland wrote:
It seems from reports that the aim of releasing the identity of the blogger was to expose to the public, an individual who was in breach of his duties as a police officer for revealing confidential information about cases that could be traced back to genuine prosecutions. However, it appears that by doing so it has made the identities of those involved in these cases much more obvious and produced further publicity. If the court had granted the blogger anonymity he would have been accountable to his employer and faced disciplinary action anyway. Who will this decision benefit? By exposing the name of the employee the employer has been subject to unwanted publicity. Furthermore, attention has been brought to the cases the blogger has commented on, the information has been repeated again and reported on further. More importantly an award winning writer who gave the public a real insight into his work has effectively been censored. How ever interesting the public may find it to know the name of the anonymous blogger, was releasing his identity really “in the public interest”?
Ang wrote:
Are you kidding?! How could they rule that he had no right to be anonymous? Isn't that the great part about the internet, that we're allowed to keep parts our ourselves, including our names, to ourselves? The court had no right to go over his head and defy his wishes to remain unknown to the people on the internet. I have no clue htw that is more beneficial than not, and now he might be facing disciplinary actions at his job. That's totally unfair. If bloggers can't keep their identity safe, then no one should be allowed to be anonymous. All of those officials who remain anonymous to the newspapers because they aren't allowed to talk about the case should be outed. Don't single one guy out.
Mike wrote:
I can't believe this ruling - surely there needs to be a closer examination of what "in the public interest means". In cases of life or death I can see why anonymity is not in everyone's interest - but this case doesn't seem that important. We've also written about it on our blog and linked to you.