Simon Power today announced a Law Commission review of the regulations around how the internet interacts with the justice system.
It’s timely to have a public discussion.
The Law Commission will treat the issue seriously, There are good people leading it. They have more than a year to report. But there are some big issues to discuss and I worry that they may not be able to if the terms of reference are too narrow.
If this inquiry is all about shutting down the likes of Cameron Slater (aka Whaleoil) who delights in flouting the name suppression laws then it’ll be a great shame and will create more problems than it tries to solve.
Slater regularly posts the names of people accused of various crimes which he deems to be not worthy of name suppression. He’s on a crusade. He describes himself as a citizen journalist. Others have more colourful names for him.
I don’t like his style. I try not to read his blog. Though sometimes I do. But I’d hate to see an inquiry happening just because of him.
I do believe there’s an important discussion to be had about one set of standards that applies across different media. But it’s not just about new media vs conventional media.
As David Farrar at Kiwiblog pointed out this afternoon one set of rules for conventional media (print and broadcast media) does not exist now. So the issues are complex.
People’s attitudes and behaviours are changing rapidly with the rise of new media. The discussions and debate around copyright and filesharing have shown this.
We need good law. And we need it to reflect where people are at.
Here’s what Simon Power said in question time in Parliament today. I’m looking forward to contributing to the review.
3. PAUL QUINN (National) to the Minister of Justice: Has he recently referred any projects to the Law Commission; if so, what?
Hon SIMON POWER (Minister of Justice) : Yes; earlier today I asked the Law Commission to undertake a review regarding interaction between the Internet and the justice system. It is my view that the law must keep pace with technology, and that we must have one set of rules and ethical standards for all news media. It is my view that that may not be the case at present.
Paul Quinn: Why has the Minister referred this review to the Law Commission?
Hon SIMON POWER: I am concerned that the lack of regulation or professional or ethical standards for bloggers and online publishers has created a bit of a Wild West in cyberspace. The specific issues I am concerned about include how trials can be potentially prejudiced by information posted on websites and seen by jurors, real-time online streaming of court cases, breaches of court suppression orders, and republication of a libel.
Yes, I saw an article on this on Stuff. My worry isn’t so much that their brief will be too narrow, but that it will be too broad. My fears would be of regulation that worked as a kind of privatisation of the information commons.
At the moment it provides useful means for policial discussions, information and education of the general population. I wouldn’t like to see this being suppressed.
Before we start talking about solutions, isn’t it important to establish that there’s a problem?
I note that behaviour on the internet is already regulated – as Cameron Slater proved by being convicted and fined for breaching name suppression orders.
I’m concerned that the press release didn’t make any reference to freedom of the press and freedom of expression. The Internet is the greatest publishing tool we’ve ever seen, and lets more people post more views on more issues – and I think that’s good for our democracy.
Tech Liberty will definitely be watching this one carefully. We’ll definitely be making our views known to the Law Commission.
To paraphrase Charlton Heston,
“Parliament can pull the keyboard out of my cold dead hands”…
There is no reason to enact any legislation specifically for the internet over and above the Crimes Act and other existing laws…
Parliament has absolutely no business here…
I don’t understand to be honest, didn’t Cameron Slater (whale oil) went to court and was fined, so what is actually wrong?! The current laws are working.
Maybe a better solution would be to print clear guidelines so bloggers and online publishers know what the laws are.
The current laws that apply to the print and televised media also apply on the Net don’t they! And the print and televised media have fairly liberal laws anyway.
“lack of regulation or professional or ethical standards for bloggers and online publishers has created a bit of a Wild West in cyberspace.” To be honest, our own print and TV media have a lack of professional or ethical standards! So, why is he picking on bloggers or online publishers.
Maybe Mr Power doesn’t like what individuals on the net who do as the please or say (type) as they please.
Like Thomas said, freedom of the press and freedom of expression.
The laws for bloggers are exactly the same as for others, you cannot threaten to kill, you cannot defame, you cannot breach suppression orders, etc…
This is a complete waste of time and taxpayers money and I suspect this effrontery to our freedoms will largely end up unenforceable…
How will they stop Cactus Kate blogging from HK..? Or LibertyScott from the UK..?
Before we start talking about solutions, isn’t it important to establish that there’s a problem?
Oh, there’s a problem – strong anonyminity and a free market in jurisdictions makes it possible for people to say things that could undermine fair trial rights and prejudice juries. But those same things also mean that there is no solution. Existing law on suppression, libel etc already covers dumb people. Theoretically it also covers smart people – but the technology means that in practice you can never catch them (and if you can, they are by definition a dumb person). The justice system is just going to have to adapt to this and learn to cope (and punish the odd stupid person when they are found).
Basically, they can pass all the laws they want, but it means squat. Sadly, it probably won’t stop them from trying, to the detriment of us all.
To truly define it as a problem we’d have to be able to point at cases where someone was convicted/freed unfairly due to information published on the Internet. Know of any?
it is a subject that needs to be addressed. I am bored with the MSM where biased is written as gospel and there are a huge amount of people who believe everything they read.
With blog sites, you know what way the blogger leans and you can take it or leave it.
I know most Redalert people have little time for Whale but don’t attack the man, attack what he says .. if you can.
Kiwiblog gives all people the opportunity to say what they want but will be censored if they say defamatory comments .. well, comments that could get David in trouble.
No one but Cactus will shut her down. Power has limited chances of controlling the blogs and thank goodness for that.
Its a wild west all right. “People actually get to criticise the Government. We can’ have that”!
Simon Power has mounted a direct attack on freedom of expression, he is essentially trying to control people’s opinions.
This is a worse affront than the Electoral Finance Act, and we all know what DOF and I did about that.
Today is the start of a campaign now against a politician who is more motivated by restrictions than freedoms.
One has to wonder why he chose today though, upstaging Bill English with his news.
Nevertheless his message is that he wishes to control opinion, this is a dangerous slope which he is heading down.
If the US military cannot control the release of information on the internet how is an average small town conveyancing lawyer ever going to get close.
Time to distribute the Low Orbit Ion Cannons to the poplace. Get yours free here – quick, before they get banned.
I’m pretty much with Cameron on this – we do need some problem definition.
@BLiP
You play to much command and conquer
I also agree with WhaleOil. But what is it about today lefties and eighties agreeing with each other ?
Some sort of lovefest?
Even more strange Trevor agreeing with WhaleOil?
Something in the air because the NZ teams beating oz in 7s and netball?
I also agree with WhaleOil. But what is it about today lefties and eighties agreeing with each other ?
Some sort of lovefest?
Even more strange Trevor agreeing with WhaleOil?
Something in the air because the NZ teams beating oz in 7s and netball?
I personally think that there’s an opportunity here to define the problem. I don’t think the current system of handing out fines is going to work. $10 says that Cameron Slater is goes off and breaches more name suppression orders. It’s really not that much of a deterrent. I’m not a big fan of Cameron – there has got to be better ways of highlighting the fact that name suppression seems to be handed out like free dental floss at the dentist.
Speaking of media, did anyone watch 3 news tonight? In their reporting of the mine rescue, they had an interview with a psychiatrist where they told us what she said (think she got about 3 words out in the “slightly” edited interview), they then showed a couple of expressions on her face and then went around and talked to some of the competitors of NZ’s Next Top Model and a couple of guys who went to the Metellica concert.
Next they’ll be wondering if kittens can survive for 2 and a half months underground… any excuse to get something fluffy on TV….
Slater’s a bit of a knob, playing up for the plaudits of Henryites and small minded ‘little NZ’ers’, and good luck to him. Even the shallow and socially irresponsible need their champions.
Please, let us not get into the argument of free speech being used as an excuse for libel, criminality and personal vendetta. The way the North Shore mayor was smeared and harried has nothing to do with his liberty and freedom at all.
As has already been stated, the laws are quite clear, and when Slater gets his third strike, well you can guess the rest
Its fair enough to review the situation. Blogging has changed the media landscape, and we should take this opportunity to be sure that the average New Zealander still has the rights we would like them to have (freedom of expression, freedom from persecution, right to a fair trial etc).
I’d say the current laws are probably good enough. The trick is to educate people about them so that when they post content to the web (in whatever form they do that) they do so within the law.
I for one do not believe additional laws are required that the current laws can not manage. re Powers comments…”lack of regulation or professional or ethical standards for bloggers” Freedom of speech is the peoples right and where it encroaches the laws then they are know to kick into action. If a blogger wants to lack ethical or professional standards then the market will ignore him if they are irrelevant and if in breach of the law then the current laws kick in…where is the problem? http://www.kevinandreassend.com
Jeremy – they won’t and can’t. While I will adhere to laws in NZ on defamation and suppression, there’s no way in hell I will comply with anything outside of that.
I will gladly appear in front of the Press Council, business class return tix to travel to the hearing.
Plus ca Change. All this reminds me of the state’s response to English pamphleteering. All of a sudden the community got a way of expressing itself, and the authorities decided to regulate it, as some of the message was critical of it. Again, the community gets itself a voice in ‘cyberspace’, and the kneejerk reaction is to regulate it. Actually, I’d love Power to try – it would create a wonderfuly seditious environment as the blogs migrated over to providers like my lovely mates at http://www.xs4all.nl/ who have given space to irritating loudmouths for many years. If that’s a problem, maybe we can convice a Venezuealan or Cuban ISP to take us on.
Lets argue with Power by seeing how this is taken to its final conclusion – political prisoners held in NZ for breaking an arbitrary code of conduct.
Why is this present National Government
hell bent on controlling all forms of media in NZ? They virtually control TV & newspapers at this time. Case in point being the trial by media of Allan Hubbard in Sth Canterbury occuring over the last 4mths, albeit with no charges being laid to date. It would not surprise me if trumped-up charges surfaced at any moment. Frank in Fiji seems to have a handle on ‘control’! You don’t hear much about the situation there apart from travel brochures indicating they still exist. So why are John Key & Simon Power so intent to follow suit? Do they have something to hide? Mr Hubbard publicly commented yesterday, and I believe personally out of total frustration, “It is like the way the Nazis treated the Jews; they grabbed all their assets under trumped-up charges. You have to wonder who the National Govt. will pick on next.”
That’s my 2 bobs worth.
Given the way he has conducted himself in relation to Allan and Jean Hubbard and their investors, I am forced to conclude that if Simon Power was even remotely interested in the integrity of the justice system – he would resign as Minister of Justice immediately.
under this govt we are loosing our freedom of speech and it is a view like this that we are all putting negativity against the govt that they really want to control, because they the govt cannot give the people the answers they are asked so hense the reason to control what is being say badly about the govt they think they can stop all the bad publicity about them, in my view is they are a gutless govt who are not prepared to admit when they have stuffed up and lied to the country in some big screw up cover ups, they have to hide behind a legistration instead of giving the people answers(remember we are their employers) as we pay their salaries/wages and WE WILL VOTE THEM OUT NEXT ELECTIONS.
So my point is want to rush in a legistration to stop people speaking freely does tell us they have something to hide in the ALLAN HUBBARD saga as this is giving them bad publicity and that they actually dont want the truth to get out about their corruption.
any politicians out there who knows this is the truth should say NO when the legistration is read in the house, speak up and show you have what it takes to be a honest politician.
Sort the laws out regarding publication and leave the net alone.
The strength of the net is that power and money does not control the opportunity for speaking out. That is inherently good and healthy for NZ and the world.
It is now harder for the Bushs and Blairs to control opinion and hide their lies.
What would have taken many years to sort out and disseminate is years gone by now can take hours or minutes.
Vietnam would have been stopped years earlier if the net existed then.
Beware of the politician who talks of net control.