SC agrees to hear Siemer contempt appeal
July 30, 2012
Do judges have power to suppress the contents of whole judgments in criminal cases?
If not, then perhaps Vince Siemer has a defence to the contempt ruling against him for posting a suppressed judgment in the Urewera case.
The High Court and Court of Appeal said “yes” (discussions here and here). The Supreme Court has agreed to consider this question. I’m betting it will reach the same conclusion.
Topics: Contempt of Court, Suppression orders | Comments Off on SC agrees to hear Siemer contempt appeal
Some sense at last
July 28, 2012
Paul Chambers, the guy who was convicted of sending a menacing communication for a tweet about blowing up an airport after it was closed due to bad weather, has won his appeal. In fact it took two appeals before he got some judges who realised what everyone else knew from the get-go: this was joke. The lower court judges had no problems taking his tweet seriously but didn’t take the same attitude to his free speech arguments.
Topics: Internet issues | Comments Off on Some sense at last
How to apply the Bill of Rights
July 27, 2012
The Broadcasting Standards Authority (in the wake of several High Court decisions, and perhaps aware of some of the criticisms I made with Claudia Geiringer) commissioned me to provide some advice on how the Bill of Rights applies to them and how they can practically integrate it into their decision-making. They have posted my paper here. I think their recent decisions are displaying a much more principled and nuanced approach to free speech issues.
I also like to think the analysis in that paper is of relevance to others who have to juggle free speech issues, most notably the censor’s office, the Press Council and Advertising Standards Authority (who are surely performing a public function, so the Bill of Rights applies) and the courts.
Topics: Advertising Standards, Broadcasting Standards Authority, Censorship, NZ Bill of Rights Act, Press Council | Comments Off on How to apply the Bill of Rights
Uninsightful journalism
July 23, 2012
Maybe I’m being overly nitpicky in objecting to this headline in a story on nzherald.co.nz:
Harawira’s asset sale comments ‘insightful’ – BSA
The Broadcasting Standards Authority was rejecting a complaint from Family First over a 3 News story that mentioned John Key’s assurance that asset sale share prices would be “affordable for a lot of New Zealanders”, and Hone Harawira’s response: “bullshit”.
The BSA said this did not breach standards concerning taste and decency or children’s interests.
The BSA never used the word “insightful”. Isn’t that a good reason, right there, not to put the word in quotes?
Nor did the BSA suggest that Harawira’s comment was any sort of insightful analysis of the PM’s statement. Isn’t that what the headline and first paragraph suggest?
It’s only if you read down into the story that you realise that the BSA was saying that the use of the language offers insight into Harawira’s character:
The word “bullshit” was used by Mr Harawira to convey his opposition to a major Government policy that had been the subject of much controversy. In this respect, the comment provided viewers with information about a political response to the issue, as well as insight into the characteristics of a political figure in terms of the way he chose to express himself. We consider that this was of high value in terms of the right to freedom of expression, and we should be cautious about interfering with its broadcast and its reception.
The BSA also noted that children were unlikely to be watching the news unsupervised, and that its own research did not find high levels of objection to the word “bullshit”.
The BSA and TV3 got this one dead right, I think. This is a very good example of the Bill of Rights being used to put a thumb in the scale to reject the penalisation of a story with political significance. What I find in poor taste is the rest of the media twisting the decision to oversell its story.
Topics: Media ethics | Comments Off on Uninsightful journalism
Scott Guy Verdict: Survey reveals journalists don’t have a clue
July 12, 2012
According to a recent poll, 48% of us think it’s likely that Ewen Macdonald killed Scott Guy. Only 20% of us think it’s likely that he was not guilty.
Apparently, the Dominion Post believes that this means that:
…just 20 per cent of people surveyed agreed with Ewen Macdonald being acquitted of slaying Mr Guy outside his rural Feilding home in July 2010.
Of course, it doesn’t mean this at all, as anyone with any elementary knowledge of the justice system would realise.
What the jury found was that the murder charge had not been proved beyond reasonable doubt. That’s a lot different to the question of whether it was “likely” that Macdonald was guilty of murdering Guy.
It is entirely possible that every member of that jury thought it was likely that Ewen Macdonald killed Scott Guy. And it’s possible that they didn’t. We don’t know.
We also don’t know how many members of the public think it has been proved beyond reasonable doubt that Macdonald was guilty. It’s quite possible that most of those who told the pollster that they think Macdonald is guilty actually agree with the jury that it wasn’t proved beyond reasonable doubt.
Even if they didn’t, defence lawyer Greg King is quite right to say that the statistic would not mean much given that the public haven’t seen all the evidence.
This story somehow spins the poll into a suggestion that the jury got it wrong, or that 48% of the public public disagree with the outcome. Someone should shoot this messenger.
Topics: Media ethics | Comments Off on Scott Guy Verdict: Survey reveals journalists don’t have a clue
Threats! Email! Action!
June 5, 2012
Barrister and privacy whizz John Edwards has found a way to get a quick injunction when privacy protection is urgently needed. It helps that the case looks like a slam dunk. The circumstances have a familiar ring: an ACC claimant mistakenly given private details about some other claimant’s claim, including her rehabilitation, threatens by email to release them, then when contacted by ACC refuses to promise not to.
Note though, that this case is not about Bronwyn Pullar. It involves a “Mr T”. Which might be why Ronald Young J said, in his written decision:
When punks start hasslin’ decent people, I make it my bidness.
Okay, he didn’t say that. But that’s the gist. He granted the injunction, after an urgent oral ex parte application under a special process in the High Court rules. The judge required the proceedings to be served on Mr T and gave him the right to apply to have the injunction set aside. When served, Mr T returned the papers and promised he had not retained other copies. As John says, a privacy win.
Oh, and memo to ACC: what’s going on with your data security? This is getting to be a habit.
Topics: Breach of confidence, Privacy tort | Comments Off on Threats! Email! Action!
Judge Harvey weighs in on anti-bullying plan
June 5, 2012
I’m flattered to see that one of Judge David Harvey’s first blog posts is a thoughtful commentary on my proposal to deal with online bullying (which is actually a variation on the Law Commission’s proposal). I think this is an important debate, not least because the government has indicated that it wants to take action on online harms, and the Law Commission is looking to finalise its recommendations in the reasonably near future.
Topics: Internet issues | Comments Off on Judge Harvey weighs in on anti-bullying plan
Blogger J
June 1, 2012
New Zealand’s most tech-savvy judge, David Harvey, author of Internet.law.nz, joins the blogosphere.
I’m eagerly anticipating the flamewar with Whale Oil.
Topics: General | Comments Off on Blogger J
My plan to deal with online harassment
May 21, 2012
Is here.
Topics: General | Comments Off on My plan to deal with online harassment
Best headline of the year?
May 18, 2012
Stuff front-page tease for an Oddstuff story about Canadian police waiting for a thief who swallowed a $26,000 diamond to produce the evidence:
This, too, shall pass
Topics: General | Comments Off on Best headline of the year?
« Previous Entries Next Entries »