[LINK] grog gamut

[Kim Holburn]

On 2010/Oct/05, at 3:42 PM, Richard Chirgwin wrote:
> Thanks. Please tolerate my muddiness a little longer; the fog is
> starting to thin.
>
> What's nagging at the back of my mind is this: the Grog's Gamut case
> will not be the last; and in my opinion, the arguments against such  
> acts
> need to be as objective as possible.
>
> Here's some hypothetical positions to work from.
>
> 1. Naming an anonymous blogger is wrong.
> The problem with this position is that it elevates the blogger's  
> rights
> too far above all others.
>
> 2. Under some conditions, it's okay to name an anonymous blogger.
> What are the conditions, and who decides?
>
> 3. It's always okay to name.
> The Oz's justifications seem to be close to this position.

Except in South Australia where News Limited themselves argued that  
it's never OK.

> My opinion is that (2) is closest to a workable ethic - but only if  
> "who
> decides" can be settled. Otherwise, it's just popularity: the  
> unpopular
> writer will be 'outed' with no defenders, while the popular will be
> defended even if they're in the wrong.


If the blogger commits a crime, like defames or bullies someone, or is  
hypocritical, like breaking privacy regulations, or a court orders  
their unmasking, fine.

Otherwise, News limited should take their own argued position and not  
unmask anonymous bloggers.  To do so would be hypocritical in the  
extreme, why is this so hard to understand?

-- 
Kim Holburn
IT Network & Security Consultant
T: +61 2 61402408  M: +61 404072753
mailto:kim at holburn.net  aim://kimholburn
skype://kholburn - PGP Public Key on request