Steven Price

Guide to NZ Media Law

Official Information Act

Official Information Act


Bill of Rights Act

Media law resources

Feeds (RSS)

Members

Jonathan Marshall’s methods

March 29, 2011

I have been contacted by a student at Victoria University who said he was approached by the Sunday Star-Times’ Jonathan Marshall at university last week, on the hunt for information about the 18-year-old at the centre of the Darren Hughes incident.

He said Marshall asked him to go to a university office and pretend to be a long-lost friend of the 18-year-old and ask for his class timetable. The student said he refused, and good on him.

I note the Press Council’s principle on subterfuge states:

The use of deceit and subterfuge can only be condoned in cases when the information sought is in the public interest and cannot be obtained by any other means.

If the student’s account is accurate, I don’t think there can be much doubt that Marshall was trying to use deceit and subterfuge here, even if he was enlisting someone else to do the actual dirty work. Was it, then, really in the public interest? And mightn’t there be other ways of getting this information?

I think journalists and the public probably admire crafty resourcefulness in the pursuit of an important story. And Marshall certainly breaks a lot of prominent stories. He gets information that others can’t. I’m sure that’s partly due to his excellent contacts and his tenacity. But I suspect this little incident opens a window onto his less ethical methods.

UPDATE: Jonathan Marshall emailed to criticise me for not contacting him for comment before publishing this post. It’s a fair cop. So I asked him for his response to the allegation. So far, he hasn’t replied.

UPDATE 2: This just in from Sunday Star-Times editor David Kemeys:

I have had your post about the conduct of Jonathan Marshall brought to my attention. It is complete fantasy. I have checked with people who were actually there, and there is nothing to suggest this supposed incident ever took place. Pretty disappointing stuff from someone who purports to be a media lawyer.

UPDATE 3: The student insists his memory is accurate.

Topics: Media ethics, Press Council | Comments Off on Jonathan Marshall’s methods

Justice: A book so good that Garth McVicar plans to read it

March 28, 2011

A new book on the justice system has hit the bookshop shelves. It’s called “Justice: Speaking Up For Crime’s Silent Victims”. The cover features a staunch-looking Garth McVicar, whose name also appears in large letters at the bottom.

Guess who wrote this book. Hint: not Garth McVicar. I presume when you open it up you are told that the actual author is Michael Larson, who in fact also made big decisions about the content, such as which Sensible Sentencing Trust controversies to focus on.

But that’s okay, because Garth says he’s “checked the facts, made sure that things are right” , according to an interview with Victoria University student mag, Salient.

Except – and I almost fell out of my chair when I read this – Garth hasn’t finished reading it yet. But he plans to… because, he says, “I understand it’s a phenomenal read”.

UPDATE: Stuff has Garth’s explanation: he’s read it chapter by chapter during the drafting, but not all at once. (If he has read it all though, why does he merely “understand” it’s a phenomenal read?)

Topics: General | Comments Off on Justice: A book so good that Garth McVicar plans to read it

Paul Henry broadcasting complaint

March 27, 2011

The BSA has found that TVNZ’s actions in response to Paul Henry’s ill-judged comments about the Governor-General were sufficient. Good call, I think.

Along the way, though, they also found that the comments breached standards of good taste and decency, fairness and discrimination. Perhaps that’s not too surprising. TVNZ had upheld the complaint on all three grounds.

But I think it is a bit worrying. For the reasons I gave here, there are problems with all three grounds. Those problems are not discussed in the decision, and in fact none of the parties had any particular interest in raising them. But if we take the BSA’s decision at face value, it seems to have lowered the boom for successful complaints for all three of these standards, without explaining why the usual approaches to them don’t apply.

Topics: Broadcasting Standards Authority | Comments Off on Paul Henry broadcasting complaint

Sunday Star-Times looks to be in contempt

March 27, 2011

Publishing interviews with jurors about the case they have decided is a contempt of court. Our courts have said that if jurors thought  their deliberations may be made public, they’d be less willing to serve on a jury and less willing to be frank during deliberations. Revisiting cases may also upset the finality of jury verdicts.

These premises are not unchallengeable, and do not even seem to apply with great force here. What’s more, such interviews take place regularly in the US without the sky falling. But our courts have been (sometimes ridiculously) staunch about the rule.

So it’s hard to see how the SST gets away with this and this.

Topics: Contempt of Court | Comments Off on Sunday Star-Times looks to be in contempt

Er

March 18, 2011

Shouldn’t some journalists be asking the government, and Rodney Hide in particular, whether the Canterbury Earthquake Response and Recovery Act follows the principles in the Regulatory Standards Bill…?

Topics: General | Comments Off on Er

The earthquake privacy debate continues

March 18, 2011

The Court Report last week featured a debate over the quake coverage and whether it may have invaded the privacy of some of the victims. (I reprise my role as reporter for the show, and interview Tim Watkin from TVNZ and pundit.co.nz, who defends the coverage). On the panel are VUW senior lecturer Dr Nicole Moreham, Taylor Shaw associate Kathryn Dalziel and Izard Weston partner Robert Stewart).

Meanwhile, the exchange continues over on Pundit, where Tim has posted another column about the issue and there’s a lively thread.

Topics: Privacy tort | Comments Off on The earthquake privacy debate continues

Laws unto himself

March 18, 2011

Michael Laws comes up with a brilliant, savage parody of what a deranged right-winger might think about the case of Arie Smith.

Genius.

Topics: Media ethics | Comments Off on Laws unto himself

You’ve got to be joking

March 9, 2011

Okay, when you’re part of a trash-talking video barracking for Crawley Town in its upcoming fixture with Manchester United, it’s offensive to make airplane crashy dance gestures referencing the famous 1958 tragedy that killed eight Man United players. (Watch the plonker on the right).

But it is surely not criminal. Or so I would have thought. But no, said plonker has just been given a (suspended) jail sentence for using threatening, abusive or insulting words with intent to cause harassment alarm or distress. I think Britain has lost the plot.

Topics: Protest speech | Comments Off on You’ve got to be joking

God Loves Hate Speech

March 3, 2011

The vile Westboro Baptist Church, whose favoured method of proselytising is picketing funerals with signs like “God Hates Fags” and “Thank God For Dead Soldiers” has won its appeal in the United States Supreme Court against a $10 million damages award.

The 8-1 majority said the speech was in a public forum, on a matter of public concern and wasn’t truly aimed at a captive audience. The First Amendment serves to “protect even hurtful speech on public issues to ensure that we do not stifle public debate.” There’s an interesting review of the court’s jurisprudence on what counts as “public concern”.

The church’s pastor (whose family makes up most of the congregation) is also involved in a series of cases working their way through the courts about the extent to which the government can regulate this sort of picketing by creating buffer zones.

Topics: Protest speech | Comments Off on God Loves Hate Speech

The personal touch

March 3, 2011

The US Supreme Court might have decided that corporations have speech rights, but it has just ruled that (in the context of freedom of information, anyway) they don’t have privacy rights.

Under the US federal Freedom of Information Act, information can be withheld if its disclosure “could reasonably be expected to consistitute an unwarranted invasion of personal privacy”. AT&T tried to argue that documents it had supplied to the FCC could be withheld under this ground. It was a legal person, it said. Therefore, it could have “personal” privacy. (The equivalent provision in NZ applies only to “natural persons”).

The Supreme Court unanimously disagreed. Writing for the Court, Roberts CJ concluded in style:

The protection in FOIA against disclosure of law enforcement information on the ground that it would constitute an unwarranted invasion of personal privacy does not extend to corporations. We trust that AT&T will not take it personally.

Topics: Official Information Act, Privacy tort | Comments Off on The personal touch


« Previous Entries Next Entries »