[LINK] [LINK} grog gamut

Richard Chirgwin rchirgwin at ozemail.com.au
Tue Oct 5 16:21:00 AEDT 2010


Excuse the snip, I'm cutting to where I have most to say.

[snip]
To me, the key question in this debate is this: what moral force should
>> be given to the blogger's custom of anonymity? On what arguments can we
>> base the assumption that anonymity is a right?
> Bollocks again. That twists the position to suggest that "the default is
> no rights and we'll work from there".
That's generally the position from which new rights are won: they come 
into existence because people care and work out a means by which those 
rights can be achieved and recognised. If a right doesn't exist, then 
how is anybody expected to avoid breaching it? By custom? Whose? Because 
a mob gets together and decides that the best way to defeat the bully is 
to amass more bullies?

Someone can say "but I have the right to blog anonymously", but beyond 
that, so what? If there is no remedy there is no right: it becomes 
merely a power competition. So I'm trying to refine the questions, not 
because I'm accustomed either to talking bollocks or being told I am, 
but because most of the public debate so far on both sides has been, 
well, bollocks. The articles attacking News Limited have just as little 
rigour, in general, as News' justifications.

RC
> A FAR better key question is "why
> should a journalist breach someone's anonymity?" That is, the journalist
> concerned should have asked "why should I do this?" rather than "why
> should I not do this?"
>
> Regards, K.
>




More information about the Link mailing list