Bloggers have no expectation of privacy
The Times Newspaper could reveal the identity of the 'Night Jack' blogger, said the High Court on 16 June 2009 in a landmark ruling (Author of a Blog v Times Newspaper Limited [2009] EWHC 1358 (QB)). The court ruled that blogging is essentially 'a public rather than private activity'.
The complainant - a policeman by day - operated a blog in which he would write about the social and political issues affecting the police force and the administration of justice. When a Times reporter managed to identify him, the blogger sought an injunction from the court to stop the newspaper from disclosing his data as he believed that this would put him at risk of being exposed to disciplinary action for discrediting and bringing unwanted media attention to the police force. In his blog, the policeman - now named as DC Richard Horton - allegedly made references to the cases he worked on, although he denied providing any information that identified the parties involved. He was also said to have 'criticised a number of ministers'.
The court ruled that, even if Horton had a right to anonymity, he would not have passed the public interest test: '[I]t would seem 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, if it be the case, frequent infringements of police activities.'
“Mr Justice Eady [the judge in the case] is to be thanked on three accounts", said Francis Aldhouse, Consultant at Bird & Bird. "First, he has recognised breach of privacy as a routine, if still novel, cause of action with well-established elements. Secondly, he has given us practical guidance in drawing a line around the private sphere and declaring “blogging” as a public activity. Thirdly, the media, often unfairly critical of this judge, should welcome the emphasis he gives to the recent remark of Toulson, L. J. in Napier v. Pressdram that ‘freedom to report the truth is a precious thing’".
Posts
