Reactions to Supreme Court privacy ruling, Government could step in

Government sources have suggested that privacy laws making it more difficult for journalists to name individuals under criminal investigation could be scrapped as part of plans to overhaul the Human Rights Act. The claim comes following last weeks' Supreme Court verdict against Bloomberg News. Editor-in-chief at Bloomberg News, John Micklethwait, said the ruling meant Britain was "stumbling toward a system in which tabloids can still peek into celebrities' bedrooms but serious journalists cannot report on potential wrongdoing at public companies by powerful people". In a related piece, The Guardian believes the "pendulum has swung too far towards the suppression of information which is of legitimate public interest." Meanwhile, the Financial Times (£) reports that the decision will have "far-reaching implications for British media."

UPDATE 250222 - aside from the claims of unfair treatment by Bloomberg and the more reserved reactions from other parts of the UK media, 11KBW Panopticon Blog provide a detailed analysis of the case. In their summary, they make clear the point about how the "publication which gave rise to this decision was based on a highly confidential letter leaked to Bloomberg and occurred apparently without any consideration of ZXC's privacy interests." The review of the case considers the Supreme Court's findings and the potential implications of the judgment, namely the government's agenda to do away with the Human Rights Act 1998.