UK Court Says No Right To Being An Anonymous Blogger
from the wow dept
While there are certainly many problematic US laws, the fact that our court system recognizes and values the right to anonymous posting as a First Amendment issue is something that's quite wonderful. Tragically, very few other countries view things the same way. The UK has been especially bad when it comes to not protecting any rights to being anonymous, and the latest news is no exception. A UK judge has required the unveiling of an anonymous police blogger, claiming blogging is "essentially a public rather than a private activity," and thus, there is no right to anonymity.In this particular case, the anonymous blogger was a working police officer, writing about daily experiences, and often taking strong opinions that could potentially get him in trouble. Now, some of us would think this is exactly why his anonymity should be protected, but the judge seemed to interpret it in the opposite way:
Mr Justice Eady said the blog contained opinions on a number of social and political issues relating to the police and the administration of justice.This is troubling for any number of circumstances, especially in that it will certainly present quite a chill on people speaking out freely and anonymously on supposed problems within their workplaces. That seems a lot more dangerous and troubling than allowing this guy to speak anonymously, where readers were free to weigh the legitimacy of the information knowing the guy wasn't posting under his real name. Of course, it will come as no surprise that, now that the blogger has been identified, he's been disciplined by the police force. So much for encouraging any sort of public discussion.
He added Night Jack had expressed strong opinions on matters of political controversy and had also criticised a number of ministers.
The judge said the blogger risked disciplinary action if his employers found out one of its officers was communicating to the public in such a way....
Rejecting the argument that all the blogger's readers needed to know was that he was a serving police officer, the judge said that it was often useful, in assessing the value of an opinion or argument, to know its source.
"For so long as there is anonymity, it would obviously be difficult to make any such assessment.
"More generally, when making a judgment as to the value of comments made about police affairs by 'insiders', it may sometimes help to know how experienced or senior the commentator is."
Update: Lots of good points in the comments that weren't entirely clear in the original article. The specific details in this case were somewhat different, which changes the story significantly. The blogger in question had actually been identified by a reporter, and had asked for an injunction against that reporter revealing who they were. Under those circumstances, we actually have to agree that there's no right to demand anonymity if you've been outed through other means. There should be a right against the gov't forcing you out, but having individuals figure out who you are is an entirely different matter.
Thank you for reading this Techdirt post. With so many things competing for everyone’s attention these days, we really appreciate you giving us your time. We work hard every day to put quality content out there for our community.
Techdirt is one of the few remaining truly independent media outlets. We do not have a giant corporation behind us, and we rely heavily on our community to support us, in an age when advertisers are increasingly uninterested in sponsoring small, independent sites — especially a site like ours that is unwilling to pull punches in its reporting and analysis.
While other websites have resorted to paywalls, registration requirements, and increasingly annoying/intrusive advertising, we have always kept Techdirt open and available to anyone. But in order to continue doing so, we need your support. We offer a variety of ways for our readers to support us, from direct donations to special subscriptions and cool merchandise — and every little bit helps. Thank you.
–The Techdirt Team
Reader Comments
Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Whether the article in the Times was neccessary or beneficial is a completely different issue, one that the court does not have to decide.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
The blogger was trying to get an injunction against The Times publishing his name which they found out with a bit of detective work themselves.
There was no court order making him reveal his identity, he was just refused a court order to prevent others from revealing it that knew it. A completely different kettle of fish.
We stray on various parts of privacy law, but I don't see a problem here. If he didn't hide his identity well enough for someone to discover who he is, the courts shouldn't protect his anonymity.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Protection vs Pretence
The right to anonymity is not a right to constrain the circulation of knowledge concerning the authorship of one's works, to gag others in order to maintain a pretence that the identity of an unattributed work's author is unknown.
The right to anonymity is a derivative of the natural right to privacy, that curiosity does not sanction the violation of an individual's privacy in order to ascertain whether they are the author of an otherwise anonymous work.
Unfortunately, people may mistake the judge denying an individual's attempt to gag others, as the state forcibly violating someone's privacy to satisfy public curiosity (or the individual's employer).
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
I Feel for the Cop Blogger
Yet another story of becareful what you post online.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Free speech is tough, it can't just apply to speech you like or agree with.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Not that I am agreeing with the Judge but he has a point in what he said, it should certainly not be dismissed so fast.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
As you specifically mentioned the first amendment, lets have a partial recap of it, amongst other things it covers "freedom of speech" and the "freedom of the press", both of which the blogger was trying to prevent the Times from having
Thus if this case had been in the states and things went according to the constitution, the result would have been the exact same
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Other Issues, Too
Some commentary has said, basically, "but he was doing a public good, providing insight into operations not normally available." Maybe so. In other articles like that in the Times ( http://technology.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/tech_and_web/the_web/article6509677.ece ) there is mention that he provided thinly veiled details of cases on which he worked, some of them sex crimes against kids with perhaps certain requirements for confidentiality, that were readily traced back to the actual prosecutions. This adds a different spin on things and explains why the Times was so interested in him to begin with. Maybe not such the do-gooder after all. I don't know.
Bottom line is that anyone who wants to be anonymous and remain so needs to be very careful to avoid being traceable. In this case, it wasn't about government unmasking him, it was about another private entity doing research and finding out who he was - presumably - using proper and legal means. And if we're talking freedom of speech, I agree that people should be able to be anonymous. But I also agree that others who discover their identity have the right to publish that information, so long as it is not slanderous, libelous, and doesn't violate other identity protection laws which might apply (in the US, there are lots of laws protecting the identities of victims of sexual assault, identities of minors and such).
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Good luck with that.
England is a dinosaur on this issue. We have a whole different world now, where work and personal life blend together.
Actually, "The judge said the blogger risked disciplinary action if his employers found out one of its officers was communicating to the public in such a way...." Certainly sounds like the over-reaching arm of Big Brother or worklife impending into private live, arguably perhaps even a form of slavery.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
that the blogger has been identified, he's been disciplined by the police force."
People should NOT be disciplined for expressing their opinions. That defeats the whole purpose of having freedom of speech, that we won't be punished for expressing our free speech. The government should not allow this.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
BobinBaltimore wrote
"Bottom line is that anyone who wants to be anonymous and remain so needs to be very careful to avoid being traceable."
This assumes that the government allows for a reliable means of staying anonymous (ie: that they don't ban networks like Tor and such).
[ link to this | view in chronology ]