Comments on: CYFSWatch Blog publishes MP death threat

By: Chuck Bird

Chuck Bird — Sun, 25 Feb 2007 05:00:49 +0000

I note that DPF and others believe that the blogger on CYFSWatch Blog is probably breaking the law. It certainly sounds like extortion to me.

If it is extortion can anyone with any legal knowledge explain why Helen Clark and Trevor Mallard’s threat to reveal personal information about National MPs if National did not stop calling Labour corrupt regarding the theft of 800k of taxpayers’ money was not extortion?

Labour actual did carry out the threat. I doubt if the anonymous blogger really thought their threat would actually result in Bradford withdrawing her bill. On the other hand I believe that Clark and Mallard thought their threat had some chance of success.

If what Clark and Mallard did amounts to extortion then they could still be charged.

Any lawyers on this blog?

By: hmmm

hmmm — Sat, 24 Feb 2007 08:30:52 +0000

I see Sue Bradford is a complete muppet according to Wikipedia. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sue_bradford

By: Flashman

Flashman — Thu, 22 Feb 2007 09:24:20 +0000

hisself: Level One Logic – Not achieved.

1. Faulty chain of logic there boyo. Think it though and gain wisdom.

2. Whatever it was, that wasn’t an example of Occam’s Razor.

By: ross

ross — Thu, 22 Feb 2007 08:52:06 +0000

> Who is therefore most likely to have posted the offensive comments on cyfswatch?

OK, let’s play your game. Who can’t handle the truth? The Left. Too easy.

By: hisself1

hisself1 — Thu, 22 Feb 2007 07:50:38 +0000

Let’s use occams razor here. Who are the people who specialise in vile abuse and denigration of their opponents, in almost every blog you read? The right. Who threaten opponents with physical violence for trivial insults? As we have seen recently, the right. Who is therefore most likely to have posted the offensive comments on cyfswatch? Hardly the greens!

By: Hamish

Hamish — Thu, 22 Feb 2007 05:17:24 +0000

…and the blogging world’s handle on reality slips a little further away…

By: baxter

baxter — Thu, 22 Feb 2007 04:42:57 +0000

I wouldn’t be in the least surprised if the blogger wasn’t Sue Bradford herself or one of her cohorts. It has drummed up a great deal of sympathy for her from even those who oppose the bill…She better than anyone else in the country knows the most effective strategies to advance a cause and I suggest she has employed one.

By: sonic

sonic — Thu, 22 Feb 2007 04:33:39 +0000

“Clearly you are a person of independant means as you have so much time to waste on blog comments”

Unlike your good self Mr F who rarely has the time?

By: culma

culma — Thu, 22 Feb 2007 04:09:29 +0000

llew – seriously you get caught up in Bradford’s bullshit, this is a nothing piece of legislation, my examples maybe loose but they all had one thing in common, you work it out.
I smack my children! This is the ultimate last resort, followed up with time to ponder what has just happened.
CYFF’s struggle to identify real abuse cases, how do you reckon they will go here? You may find they take the easy road like the NZ Police, concentrate on speeding motorists and forget about Murder cases, in CYFF’s case concentrate on prosecuting people like myself, not worrying about those that made short work of the Kahui twins, how’d that be? PC enough for you?

By: Adolf Fiinkensein

Adolf Fiinkensein — Thu, 22 Feb 2007 04:03:50 +0000

Sonic, I’m under no illusions that you work for anyone. Clearly you are a person of independant means as you have so much time to waste on blog comments.

By: sonic

sonic — Thu, 22 Feb 2007 03:17:30 +0000

Oh look what the cat dragged in.

I assume that being a man of such high principle you boycott google then Mr Baiter?

Thought not….

By: ross

ross — Thu, 22 Feb 2007 03:10:50 +0000

> I suspect death threats are illegal almost everywhere.

Hmmm. The police have confirmed that the “death threat” is not illegal.

By: sonic

sonic — Thu, 22 Feb 2007 03:07:38 +0000

You seem to be under the strange impression that I work for google adolf..

I’m pretty certain they close down lots of blogs every day, that is why they have a “notify us of objectionble content” button on every blog they host.

Indeed I have had mails from their support team as someone complained that content I was using was their copyright, I removed the photo concerned.

You have no answer to my point that CYFSwatch is in clear breach of the terms and conditions they agreed to when they signed up to blogger, so google have every right to withdraw service from them.

So you make up nonsense about Helen Clark, and drag in Islamic hate sites for some bizzare reason.

If these guys want they can pay for a site and put up what they want, I don’t see why a commercial company should continue to host content, for free, that is in clear breech of the agreement they made to use the service.

So you can tell us why they should be allowed to ignore those terms and conditions, or just witter on about muslims or whatever.

The choice, as always, is yours.

By: Redbaiter

Redbaiter — Thu, 22 Feb 2007 03:01:36 +0000

There’s no “Conservtives going nuts” Sonic. There are tho silly little leftist robots quoting paragraphs of legalize from a company that was happy to grovel to the totalitarian criminals that hold power in China. Fairly selective morality wouldn’t you say? But then again, it srecognised that Google is run by liberal wankers, what more could you expect??

By: Adolf Fiinkensein

Adolf Fiinkensein — Thu, 22 Feb 2007 02:51:33 +0000

Sonic you a dribbling again. Let’s hear you loudly encouraging the ‘private company’ to apply the same criteria to all its hosted sites. Can you show me the list of sites Google has closed during the past six months? If you can and if it includes Islamist hate sites, I’ll be very surprised.

By: sonic

sonic — Thu, 22 Feb 2007 02:43:31 +0000

Google has terms of service on blogger, if I may quote

“Member agrees not to transmit through the Service any unlawful, harassing, libelous, abusive, threatening, or harmful material of any kind or nature. Member further agrees not to transmit any material that encourages conduct that could constitute a criminal offense, give rise to civil liability or otherwise violate any applicable local, state, national or international law or regulation”

Funny seeing conservatives going nuts over a private company implementing it’s own policy!

By: gd

gd — Thu, 22 Feb 2007 02:38:37 +0000

Yes Adolf This has Ms Clarks finger prints all over it. And No Goggle will never close down any site that threatens non believers. Ms Clark will tell you to get over it and move on. You are expected to be subject to hate and death threats.This is your punishment for being a pale male and stale.

By: llew

llew — Thu, 22 Feb 2007 02:36:38 +0000

Culma, facile joking aside.

I’m not sure at all about this legislation, and as you say (with a couple of fairly irrelevant examples) none of the recent high profile child abuse deaths would have been prevented if this had been passed years ago.

However, just the fact that everyone would know that smacking was illegal might well prevent some cases of abuse (I’m not going to claim it would save lives, because as we all know, the illegality of murder doesn’t stop murderers…

So my waffly point is, those cases you mentioned were, and still would have been tried as murder, not smacking.

By: Adolf Fiinkensein

Adolf Fiinkensein — Thu, 22 Feb 2007 02:33:32 +0000

The site has been closed by Google. Who will be the first to ask the PM what presuure she brought to bear on Google for this favour? How ironic that only a couple of hours ago the police declared there was nothingm illegal in the comment. So, what were the grounds for closing the site? Will Google now close all Islamic sites which actually do threaten to kill people?

By: sonic

sonic — Thu, 22 Feb 2007 02:07:08 +0000

“These children were Murdered by miss fits”

Someone should prosecute her.