On Wed, Jun 17, 2009 at 12:03 AM, David Gerard<dgerard(a)gmail.com> wrote:
It's complicated. In this case, the Times worked out his identity and
the court said they couldn't be stopped from saying it, considering
the guy was a public commenter on matters of legitimate public
interest.
I think you're right in identifying that as the distinguishing feature
here. The blogger was the plaintiff in this action ("claimant" in UK
parlance), seeking to enjoin the Times from publishing information
they obtained on their own.
Contrast this with the more traditional situation concerning online
anonymity or pseudonymity, where the plaintiff is someone trying to
obtain information. In those situations anonymity or pseudonymity will
be more likely to be protected, although the position will be
different in different countries.
My first impression is that this seems to be consistent with current
UK "privacy" (ie, expanded breach of confidence) jurisprudence, though
I haven't read the whole case yet. Does anyone know where a copy of
the decision might be available? Looks like it will be another
important case in this developing area.
--
Stephen Bain
stephen.bain(a)gmail.com