It is remarkable that The Times of London should pursue a legal action to reveal tbe name of a UK policeman who blogged about his activities, where the "freedom" to publish the man's name clearly outweighs the "public benefit" of reading his views on the dark side of policing.
After The Times insisted on publishing his name, the man closed his website and may face disciplinary action by his force.
Richard Horton, the blogger NightJack, may well get offers from publishers but if he no longer has the source to his information will he have much to say?
Think of a whistleblower. Would The Times claim to be a champion of freedom for silencing a lone voice of truth?
A newspaper whose greatness and, increasingly, its relevance, lies long in the past has acted as an agent of enforcement.
But since Rupert Murdoch's Fox news is now in bed with Scientology, having just sacked one of its top entertainment hosts at the behest of Tom Cruise and John Travolta, are we surprised where The Times thinks its loyalties lie?
Even if Roger Friedman had it coming a wiser head would know that you don't even LOOK like you are bending over and taking it. It's called credibility.