Opinion - News Analysis   

Bloggers ordered to drop cloak of secrecy

What an irony that in a week when Iranian protesters were being hailed (not least by the British media) for harnessing the power of Internet through anonymous blogs and “tweets” bloggers in Britain were stripped of their right to anonymity after a shock court verdict.

In a judgment that, many believe, strikes at the heart of free speech and sets a dangerous precedent, the High Court ruled that bloggers could not expect to operate behind a cloak of secrecy because blogging was not a “private activity.”

Bloggers are furious and some have gone as far as to liken the ruling to a form of covert censorship arguing that it would “kill off” independent voices and take the fun out of blogging as people would be careful about what they write.

Critics say that in the name of transparency and openness the judgment ignores the “public interest” argument for anonymous blogging. It deals a blow to whistle-blowers who will be deterred from speaking out if they are forced to reveal their identity.

“The broader public interest of letting public servants voice their frustrations with public services has been ignored,” says a message posted on Online Journalism Blog pointing out that it would now become harder for frontline public servants to talk about their experiences.

The web is buzzing with angry chatter. A blogger on the playfully-named Drudge Retort says: “It seems like … a sad day for freedom in the U.K.. Orwell would be so happy.”

To many, the most attractive part of blogging is that it offers them anonymity and the freedom to express themselves more freely. They find it a liberating experience.

“The right to anonymity online is seen by many as a fundamental right and some of the biggest blogs on the Internet are authored by people who want to keep their real identity a secret. The reasons for wanting their true identities secret are numerous… they may want to protect their family or protect themselves from disciplinary action,” wrote Jason Brown on the Conservative website Tory-Politico.

But it is not just the bloggers who are up in arms. The ruling has been attacked by many in the mainstream media as well. The big irony, though, is that this “assault on free speech,” as the ruling has been branded, was instigated by a national newspaper that regards itself as a champion of freedom and has, indeed, extolled the virtues of anonymous “twitting” by protesters in Iran. Yet it was so determined to unmask a blogger that it went to court to assert its right on grounds that it was in public interest.

The case arose after The Times journalist Patrick Foster discovered that a popular and award-winning blogger Nightjack was actually a Lancashire police officer Richard Horton some of whose “best-read” blogs drew on cases on which he had himself worked. Mr. Horton also used his anonymity to criticise and ridicule senior politicians besides instigating the public against the police, the newspaper said.

In the court, its counsel Antony White, QC, argued that there was public interest in showing that Mr. Horton was in breach of the police code of conduct which forbids officers from revealing information obtained in the course of a police investigation other than for performing their public duties.

The judge, Justice Eady, granted the newspaper permission to reveal Mr. Horton’s identity ruling that he had no “reasonable expectation” to anonymity, because “blogging is essentially a public rather than private activity.”

He rejected Mr. Horton’s argument that it would put him at risk of disciplinary action. Such an argument was “unattractive to say the least,” the judge observed.

“I do not accept that it is part of the court’s function to protect police officers who are, or think they may be, acting in breach of police discipline regulations from coming to the attention of their superiors…. It would seem to be quite legitimate for the public to be told who it was who was choosing to make, in some instances, quite serious criticisms of police activities and… that frequent infringements of police discipline regulations were taking place,” he ruled.

Angry Times readers have accused it of betraying the very cause that it preaches and of “abusing” its position. One reader pointed out that while once “newspapers used to go to court to defend the anonymity of informers, now they go to court to reveal it.”

Another wondered “why on earth” did the newspaper consider outing of Nightjack “a worthwhile or valid cause?”

“In a time of serious police shortcomings, you have closed off a valuable avenue of sight for the public. Regardless of what the law might say, the court’s decision was wrong. The Times has seriously abused its position of power,” he wrote while a Greenpeace blogger suggested that Mr. Horton had been “hunted down” only to “satisfy the personal curiosity and vanity of a journalist who clearly had nothing better to do.”

Meanwhile, it is true — as some have argued — that anonymity is often abused by bloggers and there is need to regulate them. But is a ban really the answer? For, aren’t all freedoms, ultimately, open to abuse?

Printer friendly page  
Send this article to Friends by E-Mail

Stories in this Section

Redemption song
Lear’s macaw returns
Breaking the climate deadlock
Mousavi faces an uphill task
Bloggers ordered to drop cloak of secrecy
Corrections and clarifications
Ban on Maoists
Saina’s feat
Well done
Anti-ragging helpline

Copyright © 2009, The Hindu. Republication or redissemination of the contents of this screen are expressly prohibited without the written consent of The Hindu