This is handwaving snark and dismissiveness. It's not a very helpful reply. Indeed, another posted linked to the actual court ruling, which does indeed point to the offending articles. It makes the claims of a Kafkaesque trial sound dramatically overblown.
So... the court claims for itself the right to "harm" these people in the same way for which it chose to imprison Murray? I'm sure I'll never understand this.
If he publishes an article telling their job, age, etc, and the court publishes a judgement saying that "he published an article telling their job, age, etc", then you can figure out who they are from his article, but not from the court's judgement.
I'm sure I'll never understand how this is "the court claim[ing] for itself the right to "harm" these people in the same way for which it chose to imprison Murray."
Of course that's not what happened. All these vague details were matters for a trial in criminal court, which trial was described by a higher court as "unlawful", "procedurally unfair", and "tainted by apparent bias". Reporting such matters to the public is not a crime in a civilized jurisdiction.
