Justice Eady’s at it again, this time in the Nightjack case:
However, in a landmark judgment Mr Justice Eady overturned the injunction, stating that Horton, whose blog at one time had around 500,000 readers a week, had "no reasonable expectation of privacy".
"I do not accept that it is part of the court's function to protect police officers who are, or think they may be, acting in breach of police disciplinary regulations from coming to the attention of their superiors," Eady added.
The case comes as court decisions on freedom of expression and privacy, both rights protected by the Human Rights Act, come under increasing scrutiny after a series of controversial court decisions, many involving Eady.
Ruling in favour of the right of the press to report details in the public interest, Eady stated his decision was in part informed by "a growing trend towards openness and transparency in such matters".
A somewhat different line of reasoning than that he adopted in the Max Mosley case. But there is a kind of consistency here, namely that of a straightforward authoritarian. A man of affairs like our Max should be prevented from embarrassment by scruffy tabloids, for he has important business to pursue. This requires privacy. The public institutions of policing and government should be protected from scruffy bloggers in the pursuit of their important business. That requires openness. Law as a whole exists to enforce hierarchy and should always be interpreted in that light. And the media now has guidance about who it is acceptable to target and who not.
Justin points out the hypocrisy of the Times trying to turn over the Nightjack blogger while relying extensively on anonymous sources. True but irrelevant. News is a volume business, the volume consisting of stories. Promoting a blogger is one story. Exposing the same blogger is two stories from the same source. Denouncing him would be a third, if it ever came to that. It might ruin his career, but that’s the value of the story, what gives it consequence. It’s the same kind of industrial, structural amorality you get in the tobacco business.
What about getting said blogger to write your third story himself? That's some sick sort of total victory. The kind a truly dedicated bully will insist on having.
At the bottom there's one comment so far: "Another nail in the coffin for freedom of speech here in NuLabours unUnited Kingdom" - Pete, London.
Yes, someone went online at timesonline.co.uk to post that.
Seems to me there are a number of other possible points of view one might have. Can only assume technical difficulties prevent them appearing alongside Pete, London.
Posted by: bert | June 17, 2009 at 01:26 AM
I was a bit surprised to see him writing in the Times. I presume there was a deal - but what was the motive?
Posted by: Matthwe | June 18, 2009 at 05:40 PM