NightJack – issues raised

I already did a round-up post for the Editors’ Blog but these some are some good points I’ve seen made since then.

  • The Orwell Prize director Jean Seaton on a voice silenced. This point seemed particularly pertinent: “Even odder is their [the Times’] main accusation against him: that the blog revealed material about identifiable court cases. The blog did not do this – cases were disguised. However, once the Times had published Horton’s name then, of course, it is easy to find the cases he was involved with. The Times has shut down a voice.”

My own view is this: the oddities and confusion of this case aside, it is important to discuss the privacy issues arising from people writing about their work in the public sector – in publications online and off.  But hasn’t the Times done the very damage it claimed it wanted to prevent by going for Horton in this way?



  1. Martin Belam

    I think this has been really tricky. I think that The Times was right to investigate a prominent award winning anonymous blogger to check if they a) had the credentials they said they had and b) were not a really senior figure in public service. But having done that and established his identity, I don't see that *in this case* they should have fought tooth'n'nail to publish.

  2. Pingback: Bloggere fradømt retten til anonymitet « NONA: nettverket for oss som jobber med nettmedier
  3. Pingback: Readers Edition » Großbritannien: Gericht entscheidet gegen die Anonymitätsrechte eines Bloggers
  4. Pingback: Global Voices dalam bahasa Indonesia » Inggris Raya: Pengadilan Menentang Hak Anonimitas Bloger

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s