Democracy isn't something you watch anonymously

So what if NightJack's blog isn't up any more? So what if anonymous bloggers can't use the law to protect their identities?

The Guardian's director of digital content, Emily Bell, deplored the news that the High Court would not uphold DC Richard Horton's right to remain unnamed. The detective had obtained a court order preventing The Times from naming him that was overturned by Mr Justice Eady.

In a comment headed "A bad day for bloggers and democracy" (MediaGuardian, p6, 22/06/09), Bell said The Times' opposition to the injunction silencing it has resulted "in the closure of a blog and the disciplining of Horton by the force".

How ironic, Bell said, that just as Iranian protestors "harnessed the power of the web" to organise demonstrations, the public can theoretically no longer publish anonymously.

What on earth have Iranian demonstrators got to do with a cop who uses a court injunction on the press so he carry on being a detective and a blogger?

Those campaigning secretly against a repressive regime are anonymous to prevent their arrest by authorities. NightJack wanted to remain anonymous so he could carry on writing about arresting people.

You see what this reasoning does: Unnamed bloggers are trying to overturn a general election result in Iran and are organising resistance to repression; we're unnamed bloggers so we must be freedom fighters too!

Those nasty journalists have exposed NightJack's identity so they must be repressive - just like the Iranian government!

"If a citizen journalist, or a blogger, or a witness is only allowed to remain anonymous if published under the protection of a news organisation, it suggests yet again that courts have some way to go before understanding the full impact of democratised media," said Bell.

First, get past that tiresome "if you disagree with me, you don't understand me" bullshit from a digital enthusiast, and check the reasoning. NightJack used a court to try and remain anonymous - a court!

It just doesn't matter usually who anonymous bloggers are. They write crap that no-one reads. In this case, because it was a crime blog, apparently published by a detective, there was great legitimate interest in who wrote it.

Furthermore, journalists, and everyone else, are severely restricted in what they can publish about an ongoing case, especially if the charges are serious enough to warrant the use of a jury.

Under the strict liability rule, a news organisation, or blogger, or "citizen journalist", may not publish anything that poses a "serious risk" of "substantial prejudice" to the trial of a case. As a contempt of court, heavy fines and prison sentences for violation of the strict liability rule may be imposed.

A police blogger just gets a slap on the wrist from the force, apparently.

NightJack's blog was entertaining and well-written, but it wasn't whistle blowing, or a ruthless expose of police procedure.

What would be the alternative for a "witness" to publishing through a news organisation and opting for the protection from identification that way? Anonymous accusations don't work for police and the courts; you have to ask for their protection.

And Suzanne Breen, who faced prison when police tried to force her to hand over information on the Real IRA, won her right to protect her sources on the basis she might be killed, even though the judge accepted the information she had would be useful to police hunting the terrorists.

Despite all this, Emily Bell says that, in future, whistleblowers and witnesses will think twice about going to The Times because it "thinks it is in the public interest for anonymous writers, sources and citizens to be exposed". Sources should worry about The Times?

I worry about where The Guardian gets its idea of what public opinion is. Dredging up the nameless bottom feeders of the blogosphere and presenting the silt as public opinion is only sort of like finding a source.

A serving cop who wrote what he liked, used the court to gag the press when he was found out, then gave up writing and accepted disciplinary sanctions because he agreed he acted unprofessionally is not a good example of "democratised media".

Democracy is something you stand up for and take part in. Iranian protestors and many, many others throughout the world, do not just sit at their screens publishing a stream of unconsciousness under a silly name. It takes a lot more than that to win the littlest bit of democracy and allowing courts to silence newspapers was never going to help them.

To even imagine that the opportunity of being able to publish to others is so dependent on secrecy and anonymity, in this society, that courts should protect bloggers from the nasty press, shows the thing most treasured, the thing that Emily Bell wants most to protect, is not democracy, not freedom of expression and not even independence from news gatherers.

The most precious thing is the mode of expression, how you have your say not what you say. The independence that only flourishes in secret is called isolation and that makes co-operation difficult, let alone democracy.