The enemies of the Human Rights Act are a diverse bunch, but one thing many of them have in common is a tendency to launch vicious attacks on people going about their business invoking it.

An email currently circulating around newspapers is issuing death threats to journalists who report hacker Gary McKinnon's attempt to resist extradition to the US.

"We will start hurting British citizens every day that you continue your stance against US extradition," the email says. "You will be contacted when this happens so you know we are for fucking real."

The irony is that one of the arguments being put forward by McKinnon is that such is the intensity of hatred towards him in the US that he would not be treated fairly. Maybe death threats against journalists will end up forming part of his legal team's submissions.

McKinnon, who relies on human rights arguments to contest his extradition, suffers from Asperger's Syndrome and depression. His lawyers argue that the prospect of extradition and a potentially long prison sentence have led to a deterioration in his mental health and wellbeing, engaging his right to a private life under Article 8 of the European convention on human rights, the prohibition against inhuman and degrading treatment under Article 3 and, sadly, now that suicide is now also a risk, the right to life under Article 2.

I can understand why this case exercises people in the US. I have had plenty of more reasonable feedback from Americans who are, understandably, offended by arguments that their criminal justice system is unfit for British prisoners.

But the arguments in McKinnon's favour are well-rehearsed – his offending took place in the UK, the disparity in sentences is immense, and the length of time spent anticipating removal has affected his health in a way that clearly engages his rights.

A less vulnerable but equally high profile victim of the Human Rights Act in general, and incidentally Article 8 in particular, spoke out yesterday in response to threats – of a kind – he had received. High court judge David Eady, one of the most demonised judges of recent times, has something in common with McKinnon. Like the hacker, Eady has been criticised for simply using the law that is there.

The frustration vented at Eady (the Daily Mail editor-in-chief Paul Dacre has called his judgments "arrogant and amoral") centres on accusations that he has single-handedly created a law of privacy through his interpretations of Article 8. Critics have been particularly exercised by cases such as the one brought by Max Mosley where, as Eady himself said in another speech recently "adulterous and even sadistic activities [have been] afforded similar legal protection to that available in the case of traditional 'family life'".

It's a further irony that the judge with such a visible role in interpreting it has endured so many personal attacks that he could probably form a viable Article 8 claim himself. Of course Eady says the unwelcome attention has done no more damage than cause "amusement", a comment that will no doubt further irritate his critics.

Eady's response is that he has simply been doing his job applying the Human Rights Act. And maybe even enjoying it. What the criticism that has attracted shows – apart from general ignorance on the part of those doing the criticising – is how strong feelings against the act run.

We can only speculate about how disappointed people will be if the act really were repealed – instead of Eady applying it, the task would fall to a judge in Strasbourg. And instead of McKinnon challenging his extradition at the high court, he would be doing so at the European court of human rights. Seven years from now. Incidentally, that might make both their lives easier, but I somehow doubt it would appease critics.