The Times newspaper will be allowed to identify Owell prize-winning police blogger Night Jack, after Mr Justice Eady ruled that it was not in the public interest that he remain anonymous.
Read more here
We need more transparency on jury trial deliberations, says Frances Gibb
(more…)
Only the powerful benefit from a muzzled media. A free, sometimes scurrilous press is what keeps the spirit of inquiry alive says Sir Ken Macdonald QC
(more…)
Writing in today’s Times, Index on Censorship trustee Sir Ken Macdonald QC makes a compelling argument against privacy laws, which he sees as a tool of the rich, powerful and famous:
‘[I]f privacy protection were ever to chill our press as it has frozen irascible comment in other parts of the world, we would pay a very high price indeed for underscoring the marketability of film stars and footballers. This is because, like libel, privacy protection is expensive. It is not equally available and it does not belong to everyone. It is almost entirely driven by power and wealth. The rich man may be as free as any tramp to sleep on a bench, but he is rather more likely to be found at the Dorchester — and indeed in the law courts. In contrast the poor, living cheek by jowl, have never been able to put a price on their secrets. A law inhibiting comment to which only the famous have real access is a poor mechanism for protecting human dignity.’