Even if that was true, jailing for media contempt is very very rare in U.K. and the timing given his involvement with Wikileaks case is suspect.
... and then he wrote a Yes Minister-esque fanfic which fairly bluntly painted very direct "clues" to those identities, and then told his readers "read this carefully and you'll get those identities", and then acted shocked when the court didn't say "Damn you, Craig, you foiled and outsmarted us!", but instead "Posting 'nudge nudge wink wink' hints to people is effectively the same thing. You know it, because you told people that's what it was, and we know it. So we're treating it the same".
> The applicant describes himself as a “journalist in new media”. Whatever that may involve, it is relevant to distinguish his position from that of the mainstream press, which is regulated, and subject to codes of practice and ethics in a way in which those writing as the applicant does are not. To the extent that the submissions for the applicant make comparisons with other press contempts, and the role of mainstream journalists, this is a factor which should be recognised.
[0] https://www.scotcourts.gov.uk/docs/default-source/cos-genera...
"The code is more what you'd call 'guidelines' than actual rules"
https://www.independent.co.uk/news/media/press/the-sun-and-d...
Well, judges aren't stupid. I guess he's finding out the hard way.
If he's guilty of it we of course do not see the evidence--posting the evidence would amount to the same crime that he was convicted of.
Either he has already leaked and the name is out there and his 8 month sentence is justified then it shouldn't matter that we can discuss or he has kind of "leaked" but no one really knows anything so we shouldn't have access to the evidence in which case this ruling and sentence is not warranted it cannot be both right ?
The supreme court refused to hear his appeal on the basis that new media is different from traditional media, that doesn't seem right. Supreme courts are there to take novel new cases and set precedence on how the laws are to be interpreted. Drawing that distinction and not taking the case to define how such media for contempt has to be handled does not add up.
The impact is beyond just this sentence, it affects lot of journalism on how contempt laws work. In U.K. media freedom (when it comes to courts) is already not great with stuff like super injunctions. This kind of vague ruling without clearly defining what is the kind of mistake me made that is illegal does not help.
Now. You and I don't have the posts, because I assume they've been deleted. That makes it hard if we want to second guess the judges. But Murray has them, and the court also does. And frankly the import of the ruling is straightforward for journalists to follow, too: don't publish information that could identify rape complainants in breach of a court order. Which is routine for court reporters, frankly.
And FWIW a superinjunction is particularly easy to follow - don't publish anything about the injunction or the underlying matter. Is that reasonable? In my view no. I think they should never have been created. But they aren't unclear, just Draconian. And they don't apply in the criminal jurisdiction, or in Scotland, so I'm not sure they're very relevant here.
I am specifically talking about page 3 point 4
> [4] The applicant describes himself as a “journalist in new media”. Whatever that may
> involve, it is relevant to distinguish his position from that of the mainstream press, which is
> regulated, and subject to codes of practice and ethics in a way in which those writing as the
> applicant does are not.
The other point is so called "jigsawing clause" is very vague because it is not explicit on how much lee way there is for interpretation. Think about it, depending on how much you already know, any information or reporting about some event can be used to glean who the person behind is it. There has to be well defined rules for something like this as it can otherwise be used prosecute any reporter/journalist at a whim . As compared to say "Not naming someone" is clear unambiguous rule to follow
[1] https://www.scotcourts.gov.uk/docs/default-source/cos-genera...
Yes, U.K. courts are not in general prosecuting for media contempt ( first case in 50 years?). Relying on the discretion of the court not to prosecute is not the same as having precedence on what extent a report can be interpreted as jigsawing a injunction. "Journalists" (the appeal seems to regard him as second class one at best) shouldn't depend on that fact that courts generally will not prosecute them, Shouldn't they know with some certainty when they are in the clear ?
[1] The problem is this is a subjective interpretation, I should also know it the same as the justice would do to make sure I am on the right side of the law ? This was later replaced by Miller test and that established some guidelines to go by.
In summary: "not an accident, in any way shape or form".
It wasn't general "how to figure things out", but more "if I write these three riddles I'm not specifically saying person A and person B's names, and therefore I'm not in contempt".
The court took a dim view of that.