Frances Gibb writes on the London Times online edition about the British High Court’s decision regarding the NightJack author.
Check out what the High Court said as reported in the article:
"In the first case dealing with the privacy of internet bloggers, the judge ruled that Mr Horton had no “reasonable expectation” to anonymity because “blogging is essentially a public rather than a private activity”.
Coming down in favour of freedom of expression, the judge also said that even if the blogger could have claimed he had a right to anonymity, the judge would have ruled against him on public interest grounds"
This case will send a shockwave through the legal community. What effect will it have on Internet Defamation Law in the United States?
So far, American legislators have done everything possible to protect freedom of speech; and really, to do the EXACT opposite of everything the UK has been doing in terms of online defamation law.
This is HUGE.
Thanks to @Vbalasubramani for giving me the heads-up on this!
If anything, one would think that the fact it’s a public activity would make it more deserving of anonymity-protection. When talking about important issues in need of change, public scorn might more weightily be applied to dissenting voices.
I have to admit I am still on the fence. I think blogger’s should be anonymous to a degree. However when they start blogging / talking about things on the wrong side of the law the bloggers information should be easily tracable.
I don’t know, hence why im still on the fence!