I think there is too much celebrity name suppression. But sometimes name suppression is justified.
I think Whaleoil (Cameron Slater) is an idiot and his reported breaching of a suppression order designed to protect an abused kid is just unfair.
The Herald on Sunday is not much better.
This entry was posted on Tuesday, January 12th, 2010 at 3:55 pm and is filed under blogs, comms & IT, inequality, journalism, justice, law and order, national. You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed. You can leave a response, or trackback from your own site.
He has taken the law into his own hands over something that is NONE OF HIS BUSINESS!!!!
So Trevor – Do you think that the HOS should be taken to court and charged also?
@Iaam Think it is Police/Crown Law decision and I’m not a legal expert. Certainly if we were talking about justice then yes. I’m pretty sure tho that the HoS would have had their article carefully legalled – if they learn from experience that is.
Trevor
Haven’t the MSM been pressing up to the line of breaching suppression orders for years? It is a sport for them.
You’ve picked up the point re: HOS and Meng-Yee’s article which was a deliberate and calculated, but I think lawful way of reporting the story. Yesterday Stuff by directing readers to Gotcha and explaining in detail what the post meant and how to decode it, surely they breached the order if Slater has?
Without the MSM, Gotcha would have no real publication at all, limited to a few thousand people a day who read the thing. Add in the MSM you suddenly put that into millions of potential readers.
So who is actually breaching suppression and making it worse?
It will be interesting to see if Police go Fairfax. And to a lesser extent TV/Radio.
Certainly a case for lots of people to pull their heads in.
But doesn’t absolve blowhole.
What are the criteria for name suppression?
Unless my memory fails me, and it does from time to time, I seem to recall Slater boasting on his blog a few months back that certain unnamed MSM agencies were indemnifying him against legal action. Can anyone else recall that?
Wouldn’t it be interesting if Slater got jail-time, double-bunked under Collins’ policy, and had to share with Taito.
Priceless.
Andrew Geddis over at Pundit has hit the nail on the head with Cameron’s latest outburst. http://www.pundit.co.nz/content/cameron-slaters-slightly-wonky-jihad-part-ii
Grant, having now read Andrew Geddis’ posting, I am left wondering why the MSM, and we are talking network television news and major national newspapers here, treat him as a credible and reliable source and give him coverage?
Completely agree.
Guys an attention seeking clown.
Jennifer, they already know who the person is, they just need an excuse to get his name out there. I know who the comedian is that got name suppression but I still have no idea who the kid is. Saying it was to protect the kid is just a lame excuse. Surpress the kid’s name, face, details etc. I’m sure MSM would be happy to cooperate with that…. As for Slaters latest stunt, I’m sure he’s earning quite a few $$ from the views he’s getting on the site. I’m surprised anyone figured out that it was binary if you gave it to an average person they wouldn’t know…. Also the person didn’t really deserve name surpression any way. They’re like a nobody….
What about the poor victim, who on top of the trauma of having to go to court, would then have to cope with seeing the scumbag’s face and hearing the name in the media to add extra salt to the wounds? Also, YOU may not know the victim, but you can bet that there’d be others who would.
Blowhole – I understand we have different moderating standards. And we are not going to debate them on this blog. Comment deleted. Trevor
From one source I understand the victim wanted her perpetrator named and shamed. But in the case of underage defendants name suppression is automatic.
-Way to go judges and MPs, lets design a system to protect the lowest scum of our society.-
On the other side all sexual complaints (as an emotional issue for the public) should receive automatic suppression until they are found guilty. This does not happen either.
As for Whale oil, I thought there was a review or the suppression rules going on?
Not relevant. warning. Clare
I think the solution for this moving forward is the “Capill” solution. That is the abuser is named but the victim and the relationship of the victim to the abuser are supressed.
No one to this day knows the details of the Capill case, perhaps one of the best suppression orders ever put in pace.
When all you have is a hammer everything looks like a nail.
Hey, at least if they find the scumbags guilty then they get jailed and named and shamed.
The problem is that even if they are found guilty we still donn’t know their name……
I blame the politicians, especially senior MPs like Trevor deleted Mallard, for not reviewing the laws surrounding name suppression to take into account changes in technology, such as the advent of the internet.
I agree with Cactus – the media have for years being playing a good game of naming without actually naming. Take the ex-MP charged with crimes in Auckland, pointing out the relationship with a certain organisation made me realise who it was immediately.
I thought there was a pervs register?
Grant Robertson (note you need an authoritative strong red box like Trevor’s)
I can’t seem to comment on Andrew’s post over there and lets face it no one reads Pundit anyway, so will make comment here.
Yes Cameron Slater is mental, let us move on from that. But Andrew shows blatant prejudice here devoting almost his entire post to Slater and his mental health issues rather than the issue of which Slater, despite being mental is actually right.
You see mental people can in fact be correct and to throw their opinions and actions to one side on the basis solely of their illness and its effects is just wrong.
Once again – Slater is doing no worse than what the MSM have been trying to do for years, report as much detail as they can in a free and open fashion. When Carolyn Meng-Yee and the HOS push the law, do we hear cries that Carolyn and the Editor are mental so they shouldn’t be allowed to act in the way they have been?
You are kidding to think name suppression laws are protecting the current case of the little girl alleged to have suffered at the hands of an ex-MP. Enough detail has already been released by the MSM already and I would imagine opined legally as being permissable.
@Cactus. Sadly the coloured boxes are only for the author of each post, though given Trevor’s prodigious output I can forgive you for thinking he alone was the owning of the red box.
Not sure Andrew has devoted “almost his entire post” to Cameron’s mental state. In fact it is less than half, and most of that is directly quoting you. He also did an earlier post on “the issue” as you call it. I certainly accept that the MSM are no angels in the area of name-suppression. Indeed the publicity that Cameron has been getting owes an awful lot to the agenda of the MSM to break down that pesky name suppression thing. Methinks the whale is a bit of a pawn in that regard.
I also don’t agree with the diversion that DPF and now you are perpetuating that there was already enough information in the MSM on this case to identify the victim. I live and breathe this political stuff and I am not sure I could tell you the names of ex-MPs who would have reason to appear in the Nelson District Court.
Grant Robertson
DPF may or may not be running a diversion. I think DPF (and others) are correct to point out that Whale did do it in a less obvious way than the MSM. That in no way indemnifies the Whale because plenty of people worked out what he posted.
Besides, we all know only politicians get away with playing the ‘others were doing it too’ card when they land themselves right in it.
Personally I think Slater is a fool, because this sort of action will inevitably result in giving pharisaical politicians in the future an excuse to look at implementing internet / blog regulation or censorship.
And, as for Mr Mallard, he is hardly a paragon of dignified and exemplary behaviour.
people have every right to disagree with how name suppression works in NZ and to campaign to change it. What they don’t have the right to do is to put themselves above the law and unilaterally decide how suppression should work. Does anyone really think Slater is the right person to decide who should be named?
@ everyone. There’s a thing called the law. No-one is above it. Judges, politicians, lawyers, chief executives, All Blacks, bloggers, civil servants (I like to call them that because my dad was one) cleaners, car park attendants, clergy, pensioners, university students and people with disabilities who can’t work. However Cameron Slater defines himself, he is not above the law.
He can challenge the law on its principle. But he’s still accountable. Despite how he portrays himself and his cause he has the right to say what he thinks. He also has to wear the consequences.
The laws are made by all of us. We don’t always get them right. Change can be necessary. Privacy issues are very relevant and important given the rapid influence of the internet. I’ve just posted on that.
One of the things I’ve been pondering a lot about is that if your actions aren’t based upon a solid principle, then you usually come a cropper.
I simply don’t believe that throwing rotten tomatoes( or worse) at someone in the village stocks to make the majority feel better is a principle.
Cactus Kate @ 9.33.
I know it’s a bit off topic (though I do not understand why these columns give CJS oxygen – he is discrediting himself perfectly well on his own with his media appearances).
Tell us honestly now Cactus, do you never read Pundit? Go on, bet you do, because, admit it, there is column inches worth reading, as is the case with Red Alert.
The beak – How do you plead?
Whale – Insanity.
Now what?
Insurance reinstated?
I think Clare’s comment is outstanding, In fact I think I’ll put her forward for an MP of the month award.
Her comment about throwing rotten tomatoes is apt, considering the author of this post decided to hurl a box of them and some rotten squash as well.
I underestimated you Clare, I will never make that mistake again, same with Grant. You two are perhaps the most dangerous in the Labour caucus. I believe you will cause a lot of angst amongst National in the future.
Wrong thread. You are now in moderation. Trevor
So why is it that when the left indulge in civil disobedience and infringe the rights of others its tolerated and even seen as a badge of honour (see The Standard) but when a right winger defies the law to force an issue into the public consciousness, it is villified?
So why is it that when the left indulge in civil disobedience and infringe the rights of others its tolerated and even seen as a badge of honour (see The Standard) but when a right winger defies the law to force an issue into the public consciousness, it is villified?
The folk at The Standard are fighting for the right to protest in public, Slater is fighting for the right to breach suppression orders protecting underage victims of alleged sex crimes. You see the distinction?
@Clare – think your father might have been a public servant or possibly a state servant. Civil servant is a term used by the British civil service and Bill English.
@ Blowhole. If you think the original post was a box of rotten tomatoes and some rotten squash as well you are even more hypersensitive than your friends claim.
Trevor, I suggest you check out Whale’s latest expletive-ridden anti-lefty post which makes a rotten tomatoes pretty appealing. Surely this guy is completely nuts?
@ Jennifer. I’m trying to write a couple of papers and have better things to do than imitate a Japanese boat harpooning blowhole. If he comes here he is subject to close moderation and standards.
Cactus,
Comments at Pundit are welcome – you just need to take the time to join. Hit the “Join Pundit” link and go from there. We may have a small audience, but it is very select.
As for your substantive point, of course even a stopped clock tells the right time twice a day. But you’d be pretty silly to rely on it to provide you with the precise hour and minute on a regular basis. And that’s simply my point … name suppression decisions are complicated issues (despite what you and Mr Slater suggest), which require the balancing and consideration of a number of competing factors. So the capacities of the person making that call matters. And Mr Slater (by your own description) doesn’t have the appropriate capacities to be deciding what is/is not the best thing to do in a given situation.
Put it this way – as a lawyer, how happy would you be to have a left-wing version of Mr Slater sitting on the bench deciding matters of contract law that could cost your client a ton of money? Would you be confident of a reasoned judgment that accurately reflects both the law and its common sense application to the facts? If not, then why trust him to decide matters regarding when it is right/not right to expose names to the public eye?
He really gets under your skin doesn’t he Trev?
Dorothy: “Does anyone really think Slater is the right person to decide who should be named?”
I don’t think it matters what anyone except the police (who lay charges) and the judge (who can convict him) think. He’s like someone who continually drives too fast past a speed camera, get’s pinged and cops a fine. I don’t think that driver should keep doing it, but it’s not my job to stop him.
Having said that, he really riles up certain bloggers (I just love all the angst), and for that I appreciate his work. Give that whale a DB
On reflection Trevor, do you think it’s a good look for an elected public official to indulge in name-calling and personal abuse? It’s one thing for an anonymous blogger such as myself (although I try to refrain from it wherever possible), but I don’t believe that it is appropriate behaviour from a high-ranking MP and former Minister of the Crown. It might be acceptable were you responding to abuse directed at yourself, but in this case, you were the initiator.
Just a thought …
So it’s OK to indulge in name-calling and personal abuse as long as you do it anonymously on the internet?!! Ummm….. riiiiiigt.
Personally I think he’s been pretty restrained considering some of the bile spat at him on his target’s blog in the past.
Moving back to the issue (although the intended issue was a bit vague at best), this thread is full of reactions to the whole name suppression issue, but very little rational discourse.
Now I realise that some name suppressions are because the alleged victim is under age, and I can see no argument against this (other than one where the MSM want a salacious story for the silly season – and that’s not a good reason), but more pertinent are the cases where names are suppressed because the accused is a public figure of some nature. In such circumstances I agree that there could be some debate, but I am still in favour of suppression (with some caveats).
In New Zealand you are innocent until proved guilty beyond a reasonable doubt (unless someone wants to disagree with this). As such, it is possible to state that, if you are a public figure, whose livelihood relies upon reputation, and are accused of a crime that will damage that reputation (whether guilty or not) then there IS a moral justification to suppress the name of the accused (at least until a verdict is reached). If the accused is found guilty their name should then be released and their punishment served. If they are found not guilty, they should remain unknown; otherwise they are being punished by stealth in terms of the damage to their reputation. I don’t see what the problem is here. Can anyone give me a good argument why, as members of the public, we have a right to know the names of individuals accused of crimes that they are yet to be found guilty of (schadenfreude is not a good argument)? Can anyone tell me why name suppression in any way demeans the rights of the alleged victim (and before anyone tries, the justice system is about reason and appropriate punishment by the state, not retribution on the part of the victim – there is no right of revenge)?
If there are abuses of this principle (and I think Clare touched on this with the comment that laws are sometime less than perfect when first introduced) then highlight those abuses and one would hope that the law would be amended. However, this is not what Mr Slater is doing. His tactics are presumptuous and uncontrolled and the equivalent of trying to shoot an ant with a rocket propelled grenade.
As a parting note for my first post of 2010, maybe we should get rid of name suppression and replace it with ‘case suppression’, where by the MSM are banned from reporting on entire cases until a verdict is reached.
I wholeheartely agree with most of what you wrote, not sure about the case suppression thing, interesting idea, will think about it.
Don’t think too long, it was a facetious parting shot… Irony is so difficult to convey via text…
Chris R @12:29
Good points Chris.
And case suppression on the face of it sounds even better. I don’t actually want to read or watch journalists/reporters sensationalizing court proceedings. I am content that enforcement agencies are getting cases to court and that our systems are in place for justice to be done. In my opinion, the NZ public has gained very little from the “exposure” to the Bain/Weatherston type trials – just satisfying voyeurism.
And when did it become necessary that after the case, journalists ask the prosecuting officer his/her opinion on the verdict.
But that leads to crime reporting in general -
A leading item on late night TV news this week was the unfortunate incident of a police officer being dragged along the road at a road-block. – the headline was “Injured police officer had a sex change” and the item proceeded to inform us of the sexual orientation of the officer and when procedures had been performed – go figure.
@ LabRat Inv 2 Blowhole made me angry a couple of years ago, my emotion turned first to pity and then apathy in the pre election period.
He is a bit like the village idiots that most of us who live in smaller communities know and understand. Fine balance between humouring and ignoring. And I’ve tended to the latter for a while now and it works for me.
And giving him a term of endearment hardly inappropriate. If he comments here he can expect a kind but firm response.
I believe that whaleoil is providing a valuble service. Hes letting the (for lack of a better term) lawmakers know that they’re out of touch with how a lot (and I’m one of them) of people (you know, the ones the laws are supposed to protect) are feeling as well as letting them just how far behind the times they really are.
I also agree that the way the Graham Capill suppression case is the way to go