But Mr Justice Eady said that the mere fact that the blogger wanted to remain anonymous did not mean that he had a “reasonable expectation” of doing so or that The Times was under an enforceable obligation to him to maintain that anonymity.
There are aspects of this case (and this ruling) that are difficult. I can understand the argument about a reasonable expectation of privacy not being met when someone blogs. However:
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”.
Does this mean that someone who gives information to a newspaper, that is also "a public rather than a private activity" should expect the same? Newspapers are public, too. If we extend this decision to its logical conclusion, that would mean that "unnamed sources" have no reasonable expectation of privacy either. The court seems to be saying that--using the argument that having someone in the press makes moot any desire for privacy. That's seems to be the end justifies the mean argument.
I'm surprised the Times UK would want the courts to come to that conclusion.
If someone wants to spend time trying to figure out who I am, more power to them. I haven't said anything controversial or named any names, so I doubt someone would bother. As a thought experiment though, I would make no attempts to sue or use the courts to prevent them from disclosing that information, but it follows then that no one should have a reasonable expectation of privacy when they say or tell anything to a reporter or any press outlet. Everyone is now fair game.
I doubt the Times UK would find that a desirable outcome. They appear to have won the battle, but lost the war.
Posts
