Journalistic sources and online anonymity
4 December 2007
Sources aren’t always allowed to remain anonymous, especially if they are up to no good ……
Early this year a Court ruled that freelance journalist Peter Ackroyd was right to resist demands that he identify the person who gave him a confidential hospital memo detailing Moors murderer Ian Brady’s hospital treatment. That decision was seen as a victory for freedom of the press, but the Courts don’t always guarantee to protect a source’s identity.
Two weeks ago the Coroner conducting the Princess Diana/Al Fayed Inquest asked a Court to order that Channel 4 disclose “internal documents and journalist’s notes” that the broadcaster complained would identify two sources used for their “Diana: The Witnesses in the Tunnel” programme. There was no suggestion that the sources were up to no good, or that Channel 4 were not right to protect them, but the judge decided anyway that it was in the interests of justice to present the Coroner with the “fullest picture” of the events in Paris and this outweighed the natural journalistic obligation to protect sources.
It’s easier to argue for forcible identification when the anonymous person is said to have been involved in wrongdoing, for example briefing against or defaming a commercial rival, even when they have hidden behind internet aliases. Last month Sheffield Wednesday FC went to court to demand that the owners of a fan’s chatroom disclose the identities of some of their chatters. The Court ordered that the chatroom owners had to identify “halfpint”, “ian” and “vaughan” who had suggested dishonesty by the club’s management, but not eight others who had just engaged in “saloon bar moanings”. This is not the first time people have unsuccessfully sought sanctuary behind a firewall and it won’t be the last.
However, you don’t always need to identify an anonymous online attacker to take effective action because the Courts are not as slow as might be expected to adapt to new media. Take the example of the emailed threats from animal rights extremists against a global pharmaceutical company to publish online the residential addresses of their shareholders – with the usual exhortation to send them unpleasant things through the post. The activists sought to ensure their anonymity but this wasn’t a problem for the Court, who made an order against persons unknown or “John Doe” (the name given to unidentified corpses in US police jargon) preventing them from publishing the information on the web. The activists backed down under threat of a possible prison sentence or hefty fine for breaching the order and the company was lauded for acting quickly to protect its shareholders.
For more information please contact us
legal@schillings.co.uk
+ 44 (0)20 7034 9000
First published on Gorkana as part of Schillings' regular contribution to their site.
Gorkanais about creating a media market place for both financial/corporate PR professionals and the media to engage and interact. www.gorkanapr.com