[LINK] grog gamut

[Richard Chirgwin]

  On 5/10/10 4:41 PM, Kim Holburn wrote:
> 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?
>
Well, I'm trying to seek an articulated position that goes beyond this 
one case; because it is important. I'll happily concede the points about 
News Limited, since I agree with them, but what about the next time, and 
the time after that? Is each instance to invoke the same debate?

If I go backwards to pre-blogging: the custom was that you knew who 
published something. It was identified (I'm not actually au fait with 
whether this was law or custom, by the way).

Now, blogging is arguably a different class of activity from "mainstream 
media". It's publication, but without the infrastructure (although legal 
constraints like defamation still apply). Along with that activity has 
come a custom of anonymity - the technology enables anonymity, people 
expect it, it was debated, there was a moderate consensus that it's a 
good thing. But none of that has any particular force "outside" Because 
people discussing anonymity believe it's a good thing is one thing, but 
not enough to elevate it to a "right" in the particular context of 
publishing stuff.

If we want those rights to be exist and be recognised, then the rights 
themselves need to be articulated (as the APF has worked on).

RC