The Times has revealed the identity of NightJack, a blogging detective. The Times had the legal right to reveal his indentity to the world, and as a libertarian, I would strongly support them in having that right.
The big issue here, however, is not freedom, but decency. The sad thing is that people often use their freedoms to do what is dishonourable, indecent, nasty, and not in the public interest. In my opinion, it was not in the public interest for the identity of NightJack to be made public, because he provided a very useful insight into the workings of the police in Britain. But The Times has not only acted against the public interest, they have also been very unkind to NightJack himself.
And so, may we libertarians unite in saying "We will defend to the death your right to do what you have done, but we unequivocally condemn you for using your freedom to do something that was completely immoral."
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Posts
2 comments:
"We will defend to the death your right to do what you have done, but we unequivocally condemn you for using your freedom to do something that was completely immoral."
The very definition of tolerance.
I had the opposite problem. I openly identify myself on my blog. 2 years ago, an organisation complained to Blogspot as a result.
The organisation argued that, because I had identified myself, others could be identified even if their names/details were not published.
So does that mean that you are damned if you do (as i did) and damned if you don't? (as in NightJack's case?)
Not that anything happened to me. I just ignored the complaint and continued as usual.
Post a Comment