Blog Bits

July 19th, 2008 at 2:00 pm by David Farrar

blogs on the battle to save Crossways in Mt Victoria. I will be blogging on this myself during the week. It will be a tragedy if Mt Victoria loses what has been a focal point for the community. The City Council is justifying its lack of support by saying residents have lots of cafes nearby unlike suburbs further away from the city centre. A very very weak argument.

Keeping Stock blogs on an alarming suggestion by Auckland lawyer on Nine to Noon. She suggests that in rape trials, the burden of proof should be on the accused to prove there was consent. And this is not just a throw-away remark – she actually argues in favour of it against Kathryn Ryan for some time.

Whale Oil has been threatened with defamation by a lawyer acting for , who objects to comments he had made on her. The material has been removed from his blog after the blog hosting company was also threatened, but copies have sprung up on a dedicated blog hosted overseas.

I don’t intend to comment of the substance of the allegedly defamatory material, but would note that pressuring hosting companies to remove material, even after the blog author has asserted it is not defamatory and is willing to defend it in court, is not a particularly sensible tactic as it is so easy for the material to appear elsewhere – as has happened. Also of interest is that the lawyer for Pearl Going is , who was very critical of the Listener for threatening the Hot Topic blogger with defamation.

This should not be taken as a suggestion that defamation laws do not or should not apply to the Internet. Of course they do. But more the appropriateness of targetting blog hosts if the blog author is willing to stand by their words and accept legal consequences for them.

The Dim Post has more satire, this one on how Winston is handling the Owen Gelnn scandal:

  • Monday 2:00 PM: Hires two identical twins as press secretaries, one of whom always tells the truth while the other always lies.
  • Wednesday 11:30 AM: Announces to press conference that he will explain everything but in doing so will be forced to reveal the secret surprise ending to Battlestar Galactica. Political media beg him to remain silent.
  • Thursday 6:35 PM: Notifies Speaker Margaret Wilson that he is officially changing his alignment to Neutral Evil.
  • Friday 10:30 AM: Recieves report back from Department of Statistics confirming that proportion of New Zealanders with IQ below 90 is still greater than 5%. Laughs heartily. Tells rest of country to go fuck themselves.

Heh.

Liberty Scott pings Idiot/Savant at for his comments on Gordon Brown approving a state funeral for when she dies. The offending quote:

On the plus side, it will at least give her victims a final chance to throw excrement and rotten fruit at her as she goes past

As I/S goes on about how some on the right are often poisonous, spiteful and bitter, this quote brings to mind stones and glasshouses.

David Cohen looks at a case for :

A column containing acidic opinions about a powerful political media personality mysteriously fails to show up on the author’s regular spot on her newspaper’s website. Another major news outlet, after allowing criticisms to be made of the same public figure on one of its shows, hurriedly issues a grovelling clarification. Does this sound like a case Nicky Hager ought to be investigating?

It would indeed if it weren’t the slightly inconvenient fact that the media power broker in question also happens to be the same gent.

Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

20 Responses to “Blog Bits”

  1. Murray (8,841 comments) says:

    Name calling from the left. Whatever will we do.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  2. philu (13,393 comments) says:

    who said that..?

    phil(whoar.co.nz)

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  3. Murray (8,841 comments) says:

    Go smoke something you moron.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  4. goodgod (1,363 comments) says:

    Holy shit I just spent the time reading about the Pearl Going drama. I feel idiocised. Why, why did I do it? That ain’t no right way for a bloke to spend his saturday afternoon.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  5. Rex Widerstrom (5,327 comments) says:

    Oh good lord. I used to know Catriona fairly well (we both became editors for the first time at the same time – she was editing some accounting journal I seem to recall (she has qualifications in accounting as well as law)) and have always been an admirer of her good sense.

    What on earth has happened to her for her to abandon it now?! Sexually-related charges are already the easiest to bring on the flimsiest of evidence and lead to a disproportionately high number of miscarriages of justice – people exonerated, for instance, of historic rape crimes once DNA technology became accurate enough.

    And they’re the type of crimes wherein the mere accusation, if it’s made public, has greater effect on the accused’s life than any subsequent sentence ever could.

    I really would like to know what makes an otherwise rational and intelligent person adopt such a position – particularly one who must be familiar with the dangers.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  6. getstaffed (9,189 comments) says:

    Given the huge impact on the lives of the unjustly accused or, worse, those who are wrongfully convicted, I’d like to see mandatory charges brought against the clamant in those circumstances.

    The message should be: If your life has been wrecked by a rapist then society will support you 110% seeing justice done. But if you falsify rape claims (which wrecks some else’s life), then you will pay dearly. So choose wisely.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  7. Short Shriveled and Slightly to the Left (772 comments) says:

    Sorry for being off topic but this is as close to a “general” pot as there is today.
    I know Stuff.co.nz surveys are dodgey at best but I read one today that showed that only 52% or so of the voters don’t believe in psychics…..wow!

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  8. Inventory2 (10,166 comments) says:

    Cheers for drawing attention to this DPF. I was sent the link by someone who had heard the interview, and was gobsmacked, as I was when I listened to it. And as you say, it wasn’t a throwaway line – the debate went on between Mesdames McLennan and Ryan for several minutes. It’s a paradigm shift to the presumption of innocence, and could potentially make an allegation of rape almost impossible to defend.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  9. side show bob (3,660 comments) says:

    I was more interested in Whaleoils “problems”. This issue will always raise it’s head as it goes to the heart of what this society is evolving into. It’s not called the www for no reason, whether material is dematorary or not isn’t the issue any more, the rule book has gone out the door. As much as the internet can defame it can also liberate. My money is on liberation, yes there are casualties but I see the internet like the gun. In my point of view the internet is the way Americans view gun ownership, heaps get killed by murder and misadventure but those that would soon trample on our freedoms are kept at bay as information and ideas are like the pen, which will always be greater then the sword.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  10. Whaleoil (766 comments) says:

    …and on cue the latest installment of the imaginary life of she who must not be named is posted.

    Please note Mr Numpty lawyer that neither DPF nor myself have any control or responsibility over the postings on the SWMNBN attack site.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  11. Rex Widerstrom (5,327 comments) says:

    Can someone (in an entirely non-defamatory manner, of course) explain who this bint with whom various bloggers seems almost as obsessed as she herself clearly is, is?!? Are we talking some sort of soap “star”? Reality TV contestant? I’m sorry but I must have entirely missed her 15 seconds of fame and assume she must be of some importance to warrant an attack site. I mean ever Kiwiblogblog have given it up, and if David isn’t a big enough public figure to warrant attacking, then who is? :-D

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  12. Whaleoil (766 comments) says:

    SWMNBN is a someone who tells a lot of stories about her self. She is 23 and apparently has achieved quite a fair bit. It was brought to my attention by some people in the fashion industry who upon discovering the real SWMNBN were then promptly served with legal action.

    I of course hold no such fear of publishing the details and thus I incurred the wrath (such as it was) from her numpty lawyer.

    The story is quite incredible and it should be worth watching her trainwreck unfold, or so I am told. The only pity is Steven Price will probably go down with her.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  13. Whaleoil (766 comments) says:

    oh and I’m not obsessed I didn’t really give a stuff until a numpty lawyer started hurling threats around….now of course I am very interested.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  14. expat (4,048 comments) says:

    Anyone else read this?

    http://www.stuff.co.nz/4624149a13.html?source=RSSbusiness_20080719

    its a chilling wee discussion about Kullens failure to direct the economy over the greatest period of global growth in decades.

    Thank Mikhael.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  15. Falafulu Fisi (2,176 comments) says:

    Whaleoil, perhaps she was created to be a (fake) celebrity (intensionally) by the Herald’s gossip magazine?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  16. expat (4,048 comments) says:

    haha

    fellow full of faeces.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  17. Nigel Kearney (910 comments) says:

    I think its about time to consider the costs and benefits of just getting rid of the tort of defamation altogether, possibly for a trial period at first. Lawyers seem to be the main beneficiaries.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  18. Murray (8,841 comments) says:

    I anyone should be suing its Kate Bosworth.

    Anyone got her agents contact details?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  19. Falafulu Fisi (2,176 comments) says:

    expat said…
    fellow full of faeces.

    At least you can say that when you’re anonymous on the internet and not say it in front of my face?

    Koe tama komo ule koe pe koe tama fai’usi? Mahalo pe ‘oku ke ala lava loua pe.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  20. expat (4,048 comments) says:

    W-hat-ev-aa.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote

Leave a Reply

You must be logged in to post a comment.