On Wed, Jun 17, 2009 at 12:03 AM, David Gerard<dger...@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.b...@gmail.com _______________________________________________ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l