Archive for February, 2009
« Previous EntriesA copyright anomaly
Friday, February 27th, 2009Here’s a quirk in the Copyright Act that you may not be aware of: TV stations can use news photographs (even if they don’t have copyright) under the fair dealing defence, but newspapers can’t. I suppose this is because a broadcast or film is usually viewed fleetingly, so does not create a permanent record of […]
A post on 92A that David Farrar probably won’t link to
Tuesday, February 24th, 2009You may have noticed that I didn’t join the blackout in protest against section 92A. It’s not that I don’t have concerns about the law. As you can see from the post below, it doesn’t seem to me that it’s been well thought through. I’m open to the idea that it goes too far. But […]
Officials drop the BORA on 92A
Monday, February 23rd, 2009Our Bill of Rights vetting process has failed miserably again. This is the system that’s supposed to pick up rights issues when a Bill is introduced to Parliament and consider whether the proposals are demonstrably justified. When a Bill affects free speech, officials are supposed to highlight the problem and ask questions like: “What’s the […]
Law Commission looks at suppression laws
Thursday, February 19th, 2009The Law Commmission has put out an issues paper on suppressing names and evidence. They’re seeking input, but you’d better be quick. The paper sets out the various ways names and evidence can be suppressed, and asks whether reform is needed. In general, they’re looking at recommending that the grounds on which suppression can be granted […]
Chris not Christians
Thursday, February 19th, 2009I’m not a Christian. I think the Biblical creation story is daft. I don’t think it should be taught in schools. But I do think that when a serious radio programme debates the issue “Should creation be taught in schools?” the station should at least find someone who thinks it should to include in the […]
Ethics inquiry into 13-year-old dad story
Thursday, February 19th, 2009The UK’s Press Complaints Commission is looking into the ethics of The Sun’s story about a 13-year-old fathering a child. On what grounds, you ask? In NZ, the issue might be the child’s privacy (can a boy really consent to a story like that?) or whether the paper had “particular care and consideration for reporting […]
Boscawen appeal fails
Tuesday, February 17th, 2009The Court of Appeal has thrown out the Bill of Rights challenge to the Electoral Finance Act. That’s not to say that they thought the EFA was consistent with the BORA. Just that they wouldn’t consider the issue. I’m not too surprised that they threw out the challenge to the Attorney-General’s decision not to report […]
Children’s privacy marches on in ECHR
Tuesday, February 17th, 2009The European Court of Human Rights has gone much further than NZ’s Hosking case in protecting children’s privacy. Parents of a newborn baby snapped by a private clinic in its sterile unit successfully argued that the taking (and keeping) of the photos (even without publication) without parental consent breached the child’s right to private life. This […]
Lundy 2
Thursday, February 12th, 2009Here’s one thing the prosecutors could have said to White about the Lundy case: Lundy filled his gas tank in Wellington. The fuel warning was flashing when he got back to Palmerston North. How did Lundy manage to empty the tank in one normal-speed trip back to Palmerston North plus a bit of driving in […]
Lundy case is falling down?
Wednesday, February 11th, 2009I commend to your attention Mike White’s terrific article questioning the conviction of Mark Lundy in North & South magazine. It seems Lundy is to be added to New Zealand’s increasingly large stack of questionable convictions. When serious questions like this arise, I don’t think it’s enough for police and prosecutors to respond, as they often do, by […]
« Previous Entries