- Joined
- Jan 18, 2010
- Messages
- 7,177
- Points
- 48
A NANYANG Technological University (NTU) academic has been ordered by the High Court to reveal sources he referred to in a controversial blog post.
Mr James Dorsey, a senior fellow at NTU's S. Rajaratnam School of International Studies, writes online articles about issues such as the political, social and economic development of soccer in the Middle East.
Last July, he published a blog post titled "Fifa investigates: World Cup host Qatar in hot seat", in which he quoted from a report by an accounting firm which reviewed accounting practices and deals negotiated during Asian Football Confederation (AFC) president Mohamed Hammam's tenure of office. The report also contained references to a rights agreement between the AFC and an associate of events management firm World Sport Group (WSG).
Singapore-based WSG alleged that quotes from the report were defamatory. It sought to know the sources he referred to in his blog to help it decide who it should sue for defamation.
WSG - through lawyer N.Sreenivasan - also claimed that both the report and rights agreement had been confidential.
Mr Dorsey countered that the report was not confidential but he did not dispute that it contained defamatory material.
Justice Judith Prakash explained that the questions posed to Mr Dorsey in the pre-trial action were meant to ascertain what was given to him and by whom. Mr Dorsey, defended by Senior Counsel Deborah Barker, argued that WSG could sue him to seek redress.
But WSG countered that it did not sue him because it first wanted to know who the correct party to sue would be. It added that he could claim fair comment as a defence but the source could not.
Mr Dorsey argued that as a journalist he was entitled to protect his sources. Prior to joining NTU, he was a journalist and, from 2006, he has been a freelance writer and speaker.
Justice Prakash accepted that his main job was not being a journalist but being an employee of NTU, and that his blog and Twitter posts were his personal interests. She said: "In any event, there is no newspaper rule in Singapore that operates to protect a journalist's sources from being disclosed. Instead, the court adopts a balancing-of-interests approach."
She explained that if the court finds the plaintiff has a "real interest in suing the source and this outweighs the public interest of preserving the confidence of sources", then it will order the source to be disclosed.
Justice Prakash added that the public's right to a free flow of information has to be balanced against the need to preserve confidentiality and "encourage persons bound by confidentiality to abide by the same".
She found the public interest in the free flow of information would not be "adversely affected" in this case by the orders made against Mr Dorsey.
Mr Dorsey will take the matter to the Court of Appeal.
K.C. VIJAYAN
Mr James Dorsey, a senior fellow at NTU's S. Rajaratnam School of International Studies, writes online articles about issues such as the political, social and economic development of soccer in the Middle East.
Last July, he published a blog post titled "Fifa investigates: World Cup host Qatar in hot seat", in which he quoted from a report by an accounting firm which reviewed accounting practices and deals negotiated during Asian Football Confederation (AFC) president Mohamed Hammam's tenure of office. The report also contained references to a rights agreement between the AFC and an associate of events management firm World Sport Group (WSG).
Singapore-based WSG alleged that quotes from the report were defamatory. It sought to know the sources he referred to in his blog to help it decide who it should sue for defamation.
WSG - through lawyer N.Sreenivasan - also claimed that both the report and rights agreement had been confidential.
Mr Dorsey countered that the report was not confidential but he did not dispute that it contained defamatory material.
Justice Judith Prakash explained that the questions posed to Mr Dorsey in the pre-trial action were meant to ascertain what was given to him and by whom. Mr Dorsey, defended by Senior Counsel Deborah Barker, argued that WSG could sue him to seek redress.
But WSG countered that it did not sue him because it first wanted to know who the correct party to sue would be. It added that he could claim fair comment as a defence but the source could not.
Mr Dorsey argued that as a journalist he was entitled to protect his sources. Prior to joining NTU, he was a journalist and, from 2006, he has been a freelance writer and speaker.
Justice Prakash accepted that his main job was not being a journalist but being an employee of NTU, and that his blog and Twitter posts were his personal interests. She said: "In any event, there is no newspaper rule in Singapore that operates to protect a journalist's sources from being disclosed. Instead, the court adopts a balancing-of-interests approach."
She explained that if the court finds the plaintiff has a "real interest in suing the source and this outweighs the public interest of preserving the confidence of sources", then it will order the source to be disclosed.
Justice Prakash added that the public's right to a free flow of information has to be balanced against the need to preserve confidentiality and "encourage persons bound by confidentiality to abide by the same".
She found the public interest in the free flow of information would not be "adversely affected" in this case by the orders made against Mr Dorsey.
Mr Dorsey will take the matter to the Court of Appeal.
K.C. VIJAYAN
