Are blogs media?

December 2nd, 2013 at 12:00 pm by David Farrar

Media lawyer blogs at Media Law Journal:

As the NZ Herald reports, the owner/operator/author of NZ’s most widely read blog is being sued for . The plaintiff has formally asked him whether he knows the name of his source. (You might have thought that the answer to this might simply be “yes”. But I guess there’s an obvious follow-up). Slater has refused to answer on the grounds that he is a journalist, writing for a news medium, and therefore does not need to reveal his source. This rule is contained in s68 of the Evidence Act 2006.

Note a couple of things. First, in order to get this source protection, Slater has to show that his blog is a “medium for the dissemination to the public or a section of the public of news and observations on news.”

Second, even if he is a journalist, that doesn’t guarantee that he won’t be ordered to reveal his source(s). The judge can order him to identify his source on the grounds that the public interest in disclosure outweighs the negative impact on the source and the general impact on the flow of information to journalists. This rule applies to all journalists.

So if you are recognised as media, it does not mean you will automatically not have to reveal your sources. It means the threshold for you to be forced to reveal them is higher.

The Judge ruled:

is a blog site. It is not a news medium within the definition of s68… of the Defamation Act. It is not a means for the dissemination to the public or a section of the public of news and observation on news.

Price comments:

The judge gives very little reason for this conclusion. It seems a very questionable one. Whatever you think of WhaleOil, it’s hard to deny that he breaks news stories, and that he writes commentary on news. When you factor in the requirement that the courts are supposed to have regard to rights of freedom of expression under the Bill of Rights Act when interpreting statutes – and there’s a respectable argument that protecting sources facilitates the flow of important information – then there seems a powerful argument that this section ought to be construed widely enough to encompass at least some bloggers.

It is a pity the Judge gives no reasoning at all. As Steven says, the conclusion is questionable – at a minimum.

Yet another problem is that the Commission’s inclination was to allow bloggers to be included in the regime, on the grounds that it made no sense to distinguish between mainstream media and bloggers when both were serving the interests of free speech. It would have treated anyone as media who regularly published news and opinion of current value to a public audience, providing they agreed to be bound by an ethics regime. This last element is problematic for ’s case. But in the end the thrust of the report is the need to recognise the valuable news-role played by at least some bloggers.

So in the end, the judge’s conclusion is simply not convincing.

Basically the Law Commission actually said blogs should be able to qualify as media, so long as they had a code of ethics and were subject to an independent complaints process like other media.

It gets worse though. The judge goes on to consider the High Court rules. He cites a rule that says a defamation defendant doesn’t have to disclose sources before trial when pleading honest opinion or privilege. The judge says this rule doesn’t apply because Cameron Slater didn’t argue a defence of “honest opinion on a matter of public interest.” This reasoning seems particularly weird to me. The defence of honest opinion no longer requires  that the comment be on a matter of public interest. He doesn’t need to plead public interest: it would be superfluous. It seems to me that this rule surely applies to a defendant who pleads honest opinion, which Slater did. So I think the judge is wrong there too.

All sounds ripe grounds for an appeal.

UPDATE: Russell Brown blogs on this issue also:

But this is really to misread the Commission’s overall perspective on blogs and similar internet publications – which is that they can and do play an important role in public debate. It ultimately proposed a new news media regulator, which blog publishers could opt to join and be subject to.

He also declares that Whale Oil fits the definition in the Evidence Act:

Whatever you think of Slater’s personal style, I don’t think you can reasonably argue that Whaleoil does not do this.

Brown looks at the wider ramifications:

On this site we do not and are not likely to attract defamation actions in the way that Cameron Slater does. But I was threatened with such action this year. I was aware at the time that a discovery order was a possibility if it went ahead – and also confident that discovery would not reveal anything harmful to my defence. Sources weren’t really an issue. But had things been different, it would have been extremely undesirable to have had my rights ruled out on the argument offered by Judge Blackie.

He concludes:

Anyway, Slater is appealing the decision and I don’t need to defend his work in this instance to hope he succeeds.

Maybe people can help donate to fund the appeal.

UPDATE2: Greg Presland at The Standard also blogs:

It may be that for the greater good Cameron Slater must succeed in his appeal.  

Rare agreement across the political spectrum.

Tags: , , ,

189 Responses to “Are blogs media?”

  1. iMP (2,384 comments) says:

    Cameron has good grounds for Appeal, and I hope this would be pushed, to redefine parameters. If a blogger is invited on to TV, radio media panels to comment and discuss, if blog quotes are used in the MSM, if s/he writes columns in the MSM, then surely the Blog itself becomes a source of news, and in breaking stories others don’t, is a NEWS OUTLET.

    I get my news online almost exclusively.

    So, this appeal could re-jig the Law to update it with social transformation and evolving contexts.

    Hot debate. What do you think? Thumb up 20 Thumb down 5 You need to be logged in to vote
  2. Pete George (23,559 comments) says:

    Another lawyer blog posts on this along similar lines – Greg Presland at The Standard: Cameron Slater and the protection of journalistic sources

    He (and others there) aren’t fans of Whale Oil but also see a bigger principle at stake.

    What are the implications for the Standard? Well the concern is that the decision could be interpreted as stating that no blogs have the ability to attempt to protect the identity of sources. This puts the traditional media at a significant advantage over the blogs, and one for which there is no justification in my humble opinion. And the prospect of being required to provide the identifies of sources for a story would have a chilling effect on the ability of blogs to break stories. There is an associated problem in that the definition of journalist requires the collection of the information to be “normal course of that person’s work” and this would appear to exclude the protection being extended to dedicated amateurs.

    It may be that for the greater good Cameron Slater must succeed in his appeal. And like Stephen Price that is a sentence that I never thought I would write.

    Similar implications here and other on blogs.

    Vote: Thumb up 16 Thumb down 6 You need to be logged in to vote
  3. KevinH (1,227 comments) says:

    Blogs are considered new media, note media, and would fit the description of news medium within the definition of s68. The judge has ruled conservatively here, to the letter of the act. An appeal would have to challenge that interpretation of the definition and could prove to be a costly drawn out process.

    Vote: Thumb up 12 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  4. wikiriwhis business (3,996 comments) says:

    An obvious strategy by the system to get a hook into online blogging and begin a marginalising process through ratifying anti blogger law.

    A good example to show why we will never have a govt that will introduce a written constitution which will among other things guarantee freedom of speech. Esp when the US model is under fierce attack

    Vote: Thumb up 5 Thumb down 2 You need to be logged in to vote
  5. Rowan (2,316 comments) says:

    Hidden due to low comment rating. Click here to see.

    Unpopular. Like or Dislike: Thumb up 4 Thumb down 43 You need to be logged in to vote
  6. UglyTruth (4,551 comments) says:

    An obvious strategy by the system to get a hook into online blogging and begin a marginalising process through ratifying anti blogger law.

    NZ courts do not have jurisdiction over the internet, all they have for this sort of thing is personal jurisdiction.

    Vote: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 6 You need to be logged in to vote
  7. berend (1,708 comments) says:

    Another example why the NZ electorate should get the power of recall of judges. There are far too many who are way out there, light sentencing, ridiculous sentencing, no lifetime judges (except top level perhaps) please.

    Vote: Thumb up 20 Thumb down 4 You need to be logged in to vote
  8. Longknives (4,739 comments) says:

    Sheesh Rowan- What did Whale Oil ever do to you?

    Hot debate. What do you think? Thumb up 22 Thumb down 4 You need to be logged in to vote
  9. UglyTruth (4,551 comments) says:

    Another example why the NZ electorate should get the power of recall of judges.

    And risk a mobocracy?

    Vote: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 8 You need to be logged in to vote
  10. Nigel Kearney (1,012 comments) says:

    The idea of defining certain outlets as ‘media’ and giving them more rights than everyone else is fatally flawed. Journalists are not the same as doctors or lawyers. And if they were, most of the Herald staff would have been struck off for malpractice by now anyway.

    Vote: Thumb up 19 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  11. Weihana (4,537 comments) says:

    berend (1,537 comments) says:
    December 2nd, 2013 at 12:31 pm

    Another example why the NZ electorate should get the power of recall of judges. There are far too many who are way out there, light sentencing, ridiculous sentencing…

    If the ruling is questionable then an appeal is the correct response. The issue at stake is what *the law* says, not what public opinion favours.

    Vote: Thumb up 4 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  12. Rowan (2,316 comments) says:

    Longknives
    This is not personal, I don’t personally know Whale just as I don’t know you, I just have a low opinion of the negativity and trial by media approach he portrays in his blogs. I had an equally low opinion of the soft porn rag ‘Truth’ that he used to edit. There has to be a reason why thats not still on the shelves, could the whale be facing more defamation that we haven’t yet heard about?

    Hot debate. What do you think? Thumb up 5 Thumb down 27 You need to be logged in to vote
  13. dave (988 comments) says:

    This case is not about whether someone is a journalist or not so much as whether blogs are news medium.

    The judge is wrong to say that a blog is not a means for the dissemination to the public or a section of the public of news and observation on news. If I write an article for a newspaper – but publish it on a blog instead, why should there be different rules if we are focusing on the medium, rather than the recipients.

    Vote: Thumb up 16 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  14. Albert_Ross (291 comments) says:

    Agree strongly with Nigel Kearney. If journalists expect the law to apply in different ways to them than it does to others, they should have corresponding responsibilities and codes of practice with appropriate penalties for non-compliance.

    Vote: Thumb up 6 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  15. Dennis Horne (2,403 comments) says:

    @Moron. You know who you are. ;)

    Vote: Thumb up 5 Thumb down 3 You need to be logged in to vote
  16. Manolo (13,749 comments) says:

    Is Rowan Len Brown’s pseudonym?

    Vote: Thumb up 14 Thumb down 4 You need to be logged in to vote
  17. Rowan (2,316 comments) says:

    Oh Denny the f…wit, that the best you can do

    Vote: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 11 You need to be logged in to vote
  18. Hamish_NZ (46 comments) says:

    If Whale doesn’t fit the definition of news media, will John Campbell and the 7 sharp lot be getting nervous. Arguably Cameron breaks and reports on more stories than either of them.

    Not that I agree with everything whaleoil writes, but to me he’s no more or less media than other news sources including all of the big papers and networks.

    Vote: Thumb up 20 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  19. david (2,557 comments) says:

    Funny as a fight at the Stranded on this. They are spinning so hard in an attempt to a) sound knowledgeable (particularly u no hu, the world’s greatest sysop); b) stick a few more knives into Cam Slater, c) express fear over what it might mean for them if Cam’s appeal does not succeed, and d) do the highland fling on the head of a very small pin about possible reasons why that upright, socially responsible and fair-minded publication is exempt from danger.

    Talk about the blind leading the blind.

    Vote: Thumb up 12 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  20. goldnkiwi (1,303 comments) says:

    What is ‘news’ is also subjective, there are topics that are of interest to some and not to others. In a newspaper different interests would be served in ‘sections’.

    ‘Media’ should not have to have a broad appeal either, just like specific publications now, specific topic blogs should not be excluded from the definition either.

    Vote: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 3 You need to be logged in to vote
  21. Kea (12,805 comments) says:

    I do not care if a blog is media or journalism. It is irrelevant.

    This is a disgraceful attack on freedom of speech by an arrogant Judge who thinks he can define the merits of various media, elevating traditional media to a position it has neither earned or deserves.

    Way too many of you are overlooking what is happening before your eyes because you don’t like Whale [Hi Rowan]. This decision is an appalling one that we should all be shouting out against in unison, regardless of personal views about Whale. This is not about Whale. It has wider implications.

    Hot debate. What do you think? Thumb up 21 Thumb down 5 You need to be logged in to vote
  22. goldnkiwi (1,303 comments) says:

    As has another defamation case heard recently in the Auckland High Court.

    The new cash cow, sensitive wee lot us NZer’s.

    Vote: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 3 You need to be logged in to vote
  23. Rowan (2,316 comments) says:

    Rachel
    That decision will make good reading, might set predents for Whale and other cases involving online defamation and trial by media.

    Vote: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 7 You need to be logged in to vote
  24. Tom Jackson (2,553 comments) says:

    I’m going to disagree. Blogs can be media, but Slater’s is not.

    The basic agreement between society and journalists is that they get privileges that others do not (such as being able to conceal sources) in return for rough adherence to the generally accepted principles of journalistic ethics. If someone cannot plausibly point to what they do as adhering to these principles, then what they are doing has strayed beyond the bounds of journalism, and they ought to no longer enjoy the expanded rights that society bestows on journalists.

    Cam Slater is his own worst enemy. He’s made it clear on any number of occasions that the function of his blog is solely instrumental to his self-declared, no-holds-barred war on the left. It’s the “no holds barred” bit that is relevant, since he has proven that he will do pretty much anything to get a win – that’s not journalism. Of course many other media outlets are biased, but they aren’t so stupid as to come out and declare it in plain English.

    He’s also on record as flat out lying on this very blog to cover up his unethical behaviour regarding Bevan Chuang.

    Of all the popular political blogs in New Zealand, Slater’s is the only one that is so far outside the norms of journalism as to make it obvious.

    Look, if you want to be a journalist and defame people, you have to be clever about it. Publicly stating that you will do anything or say anything to bring down your enemies makes it very difficult for people to take what you are doing as journalism.

    Hot debate. What do you think? Thumb up 9 Thumb down 21 You need to be logged in to vote
  25. Tom Jackson (2,553 comments) says:

    This is a disgraceful attack on freedom of speech

    No it’s not. Slater’s right to free speech remains the same as ours.

    Vote: Thumb up 8 Thumb down 11 You need to be logged in to vote
  26. Kea (12,805 comments) says:

    Defamation cases are bullshit and are (mostly) nothing more than thinly veiled bullying to avoid being held accountable or restrict what others are allowed to say about you.

    If we are to preserve freedom of speech, then the grounds for defamation need to be restricted severely. The starting point should be to prove the accusations are false. Eg: the $100,000 recently paid out for calling someone a “lying slut” would require her to prove she did not lie and was not a slut. The next thing to prove is that an actual and direct loss really occurred. Hurt feelings and reputations should not count.

    Vote: Thumb up 6 Thumb down 8 You need to be logged in to vote
  27. Tom Jackson (2,553 comments) says:

    From the Price article:

    It would have treated anyone as media who regularly published news and opinion of current value to a public audience, providing they agreed to be bound by an ethics regime.

    and

    There is a still an argument to be made that to provide “news” requires some degree of adherence to traditional journalistic ethics.

    Slater would fail this. He deserves no more protection for his comments than any other ordinary New Zealander.

    Vote: Thumb up 5 Thumb down 14 You need to be logged in to vote
  28. Kea (12,805 comments) says:

    Tom, would you have written any of that double speak nonsense if Cam was a blogger who you strongly approved of ? I think you are full shit. How will you feel when one of your pet shills is the next target ?

    Wake up and realise this is not about your personal view of Whale. It is completely irrelevant what you think of him.

    Vote: Thumb up 17 Thumb down 5 You need to be logged in to vote
  29. James Stephenson (2,173 comments) says:

    Slater’s is the only one that is so far outside the norms of journalism as to make it obvious.

    Yeah, I guess being upfront and honest about your bias and your motivations is well outside the norms of New Zealand’s mainstream media.

    Vote: Thumb up 20 Thumb down 2 You need to be logged in to vote
  30. peterwn (3,271 comments) says:

    I think the problems here are that defences which should have been pleaded were not, and as soon as it was realised that the ‘interpretation’ of a journalist was at issue, the defence needed to provide some cogent evidence and argument as to why the defendant was a journalist. It is unfair to say the judge was ‘arrogant’ as judges generally expect to consider material placed before them by the respective lawyers, and not have to research this. Leave has been given to appeal this point (is a blogger a journalist?) but the this needs to be argued very thoroughly, and it seems doubtful it can be properly done without a lawyer.

    The ‘bottom line’ of all this – steer clear of anything that may approach defamation. As a Crown lawyer told a Medical Officer of Health, there are many ways of saying someone is not being truthful without crossing the defamation threshhold. He was being sued by the then Mayor of Auckland (Dove Myer Robinson) following one of Robbie’s anti-fluoridation outbursts, and the Nelson MOH was asked to comment by the Nelson Mail and said that he was telling lies. Robbie hired a clippings service to clip everything in NZ papers that pertained to him.

    Vote: Thumb up 6 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  31. goldnkiwi (1,303 comments) says:

    Is the author of any publication considered to be a journalist or media due to the dissemination of information? Works of fiction excluded of course.

    Do ‘journalistic ethics’ if the broader definition applies include correcting misinformation? Anecdotally, Whaleoil seems to. Demonstrably all publications do not, or if they do there is no prominence of placement.

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 3 You need to be logged in to vote
  32. Kea (12,805 comments) says:

    Slater would fail this. He deserves no more protection for his comments than any other ordinary New Zealander.

    Tom, at last we agree. All New Zealanders should have 100% freedom of expression, with out fear of government censorship (which is what legal proceedings are in this case).

    No exceptions. Ever.

    The price paid for restricting freedom of speech is way higher than the price paid for allowing it. History demonstrates this clearly to all those who care to pull their heads out of their arses.

    Vote: Thumb up 11 Thumb down 3 You need to be logged in to vote
  33. tas (625 comments) says:

    Good on Greg Presland and other left-wing commentators for putting politics aside and condemning this awful precedent. I hope that, if the situation were reversed, right-wing bloggers (and myself) would do the same.

    Vote: Thumb up 14 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  34. Rowan (2,316 comments) says:

    Whale is his own worst enemy. He is digging his own grave and now he is getting taken to court over his actions. When he goes down he will only have himself to blame.

    Vote: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 18 You need to be logged in to vote
  35. UglyTruth (4,551 comments) says:

    If we are to preserve freedom of speech, then the grounds for defamation need to be restricted severely. The starting point should be to prove the accusations are false. Eg: the $100,000 recently paid out for calling someone a “lying slut” would require her to prove she did not lie and was not a slut.

    Another pointless prescriptive argument based on some perceived “need”.

    In cases of defamation the burden of proof belongs to the one making the initial accusation. The law provides the presumption of innocence.

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 2 You need to be logged in to vote
  36. Kea (12,805 comments) says:

    The ‘bottom line’ of all this – steer clear of anything that may approach defamation.

    What a spineless lot we have become. Grovelling to self appointed authorities without question or regard for what is right. :(

    Vote: Thumb up 9 Thumb down 5 You need to be logged in to vote
  37. Tom Jackson (2,553 comments) says:

    Tom, would you have written any of that double speak nonsense if Cam was a blogger who you strongly approved of ? I think you are full shit. How will you feel when one of your pet shills is the next target ?

    I’m not sure that there are any bloggers that I do “strongly approve” of, so your argument is a bust. Slater’s blog is the only one I can think of among mainstream NZ blogs that is obviously not adhering to the regular standards of journalism.

    Personally, I would find it quite funny to watch any the more self righteous NZ bloggers persecuted by the legal profession. Such shrill squeals are sweet music to the ears.

    Vote: Thumb up 4 Thumb down 8 You need to be logged in to vote
  38. F E Smith (3,305 comments) says:

    The basic agreement between society and journalists

    What agreement is that?  I am party to no such agreement! If there is one, I want out.  Journalists are not some noble creature benefiting society, they are simply employees in their employer’s mission to make a profit from selling news and opinion.  

    However,

    in return for rough adherence to the generally accepted principles of journalistic ethics.

    which are extremely flexible, ill defined, advisory only, and really only a part of journalisim in recent times.  Historically journalists have led the world in muckracking, jingoism, interference in people’s personal lives, and general nuisance.

    Oh, hold on, they still do…

    Vote: Thumb up 17 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  39. Longknives (4,739 comments) says:

    “in return for rough adherence to the generally accepted principles of journalistic ethics.”

    “Journalistic Ethics”??
    Comedy gold Tom! Do you do ‘stand-up’?

    Vote: Thumb up 8 Thumb down 2 You need to be logged in to vote
  40. F E Smith (3,305 comments) says:

    I would find it quite funny to watch any the more self righteous NZ bloggers persecuted by the legal profession

    We don’t persecute anyone.  Our clients do that; we simply represent the persecutors according to their instrucutions, is all.

    Vote: Thumb up 9 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  41. F E Smith (3,305 comments) says:

    As has another defamation case heard recently in the Auckland High Court.

    The new cash cow, sensitive wee lot us NZer’s.

    Actually, it is comparitively rare in NZ, and probably not used often enough.  If you want to see sensitive, go visit the Courts in London.

    Vote: Thumb up 8 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  42. F E Smith (3,305 comments) says:

    instrucutions

    Oh dear.  I did in fact mean to say ‘instructions’.

    Vote: Thumb up 5 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  43. Albert_Ross (291 comments) says:

    in return for rough adherence to the generally accepted principles of journalistic ethics

    Could you provide some examples of these journalistic ethics, and show how they are applied? For example, what would happen to a journalist who didn’t adhere to them, even “roughly”.

    Vote: Thumb up 11 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  44. Fentex (971 comments) says:

    the conclusion is questionable – at a minimum.

    It’s not merely questionable, it’s simply wrong.

    The standard of “medium for the dissemination to the public or a section of the public of news and observations on news” is a question of fact easily established by observation that Whale Oil has broken news stories and does comment on news to a wide audience.

    Journalism is a act anyone can perform, not a title to be bestowed at the pleasure of authority.

    Vote: Thumb up 12 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  45. Dennis Horne (2,403 comments) says:

    There was an old blogger called Tom
    Who wrote such rot with aplomb
    So it was left to Kea
    To help Slater here
    After FES helpfully compared Lon-don.

    Vote: Thumb up 4 Thumb down 5 You need to be logged in to vote
  46. Dennis Horne (2,403 comments) says:

    @Moron. I’m back momentarily. Something you had to say to me? You know who you are. :)

    Vote: Thumb up 4 Thumb down 5 You need to be logged in to vote
  47. Alan Wilkinson (1,878 comments) says:

    I think the judge was demonstrably wrong. However the bigger question is what separates the citizen and the journalist now that anyone can publish. It seems obvious that the law should discriminate only on what is done, not on who does it. Therefore anyone providing journalism should be entitled to any privileges pertaining and anyone (incl “journalists”) engaged in something less than that standard should not.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  48. UglyTruth (4,551 comments) says:

    However the bigger question is what separates the citizen and the journalist now that anyone can publish.

    What about people who are neither citizens nor journalists? Why should they have to conform to any criteria which is generally recognized by society?

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 7 You need to be logged in to vote
  49. Rowan (2,316 comments) says:

    F… of Denny you arsewipe, none of my posts have been directed at or about you so crawl back to your kennel.

    Vote: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 11 You need to be logged in to vote
  50. SGA (1,022 comments) says:

    Kea at 1:41 pm

    If we are to preserve freedom of speech, then the grounds for defamation need to be restricted severely. The starting point should be to prove the accusations are false.

    Not sure about this, Kea. For example, if I run around telling the lie that “Kea has slept with unage prostitutes”, how do you “prove” that you haven’t? It seems fairer that I should have to prove that you have.

    Vote: Thumb up 6 Thumb down 2 You need to be logged in to vote
  51. UglyTruth (4,551 comments) says:

    It is a pity the Judge gives no reasoning at all.

    Possibly because Slater (in his capacity as a blogger) is not a person, and they don’t like to admit that their jurisdiction is not universal (it’s a different story for corporate media).

    The definitions used by Blackie were:

    journalist means a person who in the normal course of that person’s work may be given information by an informant in the expectation that the information may be published in a news medium

    informant means a person who gives information to a journalist in the normal course of the journalist’s work in the expectation that the information may be published in a news medium

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 4 You need to be logged in to vote
  52. publicwatchdog (2,593 comments) says:

    According to this definition – is Cameron Slater a ‘journalist’?

    In my considered opinion – NO.

    “As for a definition of journalism in NZ, I believe we follow the principle of fair and balanced reporting of news
    and issues that affect our community. The Otago Daily Times has a mission statement to: publish news,
    information and opinion in a fair, balanced and truthful manner that best serves our community. That underpins
    our role as journalists.” New Zealand ”

    ‘Freedom of expression’ is not an unfettered right to defame people (by telling lies / untruths about them.)

    Cameron Slater does NOT allow ‘freedom of expression’ on HIS ‘Whale Oil’ blog.

    He has banned me from making comments on issues on Whale Oil , although I am never personally abusive
    (unlike him), and my opinion is usually considered, backed with facts and evidence.

    (Mind you, Martyn Bradbury is no better. He too banned me from making comments on HIS ‘Daily Blog’, because
    he did not agree that I should have stood against John Minto as Auckland Mayor.

    So – on that basis, and definition, I don’t regards Martyn Bradbury as a ‘journalist’ either. )

    I note that in the Len Brown matter, Cameron Slater made sure he got a sworn affidavit from Bevan Chuang
    before he broke that story?

    (And, Ms Chuang’s identity was hardly ‘top secret’?)

    If Matt Blomfield believes he has been defamed, doesn’t he have a right to defend himself?

    Doesn’t he have a right to know what his ‘accuser’ has said about him, and who his accuser is?

    What attempt did Cameron Slater make to get Matt Blomfield’s side of the story – because if he made no
    attempt, then he’s arguably not a hair on a genuine journalists backside (as it were), in my considered opinion.

    If Matt Blomfield’s accuser believes Matt Blomfield has committed an offence – why hasn’t he made a complaint
    to the Police / SFO / FMA?

    If Matt Blomfield’s accuser has the FACTS and EVIDENCE to back up his allegations about Matt Blomfield’s
    ‘business dealings’, then why hasn’t he taken this to the appropriate authorities?

    If If Matt Blomfield’s accuser doesn’t have the FACTS and EVIDENCE to back up his allegations about Matt
    Blomfield’s ‘business dealings’ – then he/ she + Cameron Slater deserve to be sued for defamation, in my opinion.

    Remember – there are always (at least) two sides to a story……

    ‘Seek truth from FACTS’!
    _____________________________________________________________________________________________

    https://reutersinstitute.politics.ox.ac.uk/resources/definitions-of-journalism.html

    What is Journalism?

    Over 400 journalists from all over the world have taken part in the Fellowship Programme over the past 25 years.
    We asked a selection of our former Fellows for their thoughts on the profession, its challenges, and how it is
    perceived in their country. Here is a sample of their responses to the following question:

    Is there an accepted brief definition of ‘journalism’ in your country and what do you see as the major challenges
    facing it?

    “As for a definition of journalism in NZ, I believe we follow the principle of fair and balanced reporting of news and issues that affect our community. The Otago Daily Times has a mission statement to: publish news, information and opinion in a fair, balanced and truthful manner that best serves our community. That underpins our role as journalists.” New Zealand

    “In HK, journalism just means mass media. The challenges it is facing is the increasing trend of self-censorship as HK is relying more and more on China. A lot of media owners have business interests in China. At the same time, HK citizens realise the need of HK to depend on China for future growth and survival. So they also want the media to be less critical of China. Pragmatism dominates.” Hong Kong

    “Concerning the definition of journalism in Egypt and the major obstacles facing the profession, I think it really needs a lot of effort to achieve any kind of agreement concerning a one solid definition for journalism – but I can say on my way of thinking that many of the Egyptian journalists in Egypt consider this job as the fourth estate or the watchdog of the society, and considers the lack of professional training for journalists one of the biggest problems that faces journalists in Egypt.” Egypt

    “There is no accepted brief definition of journalism in the United States. The issue stems partly from the rise of Internet communications, in which people without experience or qualifications present themselves as reporters or commentators (unvetted, unedited), and in which the audience self-limits the information it receives and grants credibility to the information that supports its point of view.” USA

    “Regarding your question: No, there’s not an ‘accepted brief definition of ‘journalism’ in Argentina, at least not in terms of what you can get from an academic point of view. In general, I think the major challenge journalism faces these days is the Internet, the Age of Information, the Digital Revolution: how traditional media can make the adjustments and survive; what sort of impact is getting from non-traditional expressions such as the so-called ‘citizen journalism.’” Argentina

    “Definition of Journalism: Journalism in Germany is often called the fourth pillar of the state; its rights are stated in the German constitution that guarantees the freedom of speech. The founder of one of the most famous journalism schools in the country, Wolf Schneider, defined journalism as follows: To cut a path of information through the jungle of worldly affairs and to keep an eye on the people in power. Its greatest challenges: At the moment, the greatest challenge to the freedom of the press in Germany is the uncertain economic situation and, because of this, the pressure on the media from declining advertising revenue as well as growing demands of proprietors to cut costs often to the detriment of journalistic quality.” Austin Mahone Germany

    As for a definition of journalism in NZ, I believe we follow the principle of fair and balanced reporting of news and issues that affect our community. The Otago Daily Times has a mission statement to: publish news, information and opinion in a fair, balanced and truthful manner that best serves our community. That underpins our role as journalists.” New Zealand

    “As journalism in Brazil has become less analytical and investigative in the past ten years, it means essentially description of reality. In the newsrooms these days in Brazil normally there are no discussions, planning nor evaluation of the articles. Any search of new approaches is very rare. The old idea of journalism as mere writing still reigns. Major challenges are motivating journalists to research, to analyse, to evaluate their own work, to grow intellectually and culturally, and do have more of a global view.” Brazil

    “Journalism is a word that covers a multitude of sins – perhaps too many. Change challenges us all – journalism is nothing terribly special in that regard (although we like to think it is).” UK

    “My definition about journalism: gathering news for newspaper or website. This is in Holland a job that can be done freely.” Holland

    “I really can’t speak on behalf of the ‘scientific community’ or all the practitioners, but I would say that the accepted and prevalent definition refers to journalism as a process of conveying information in an objective and impartial way. Briefly, the major challenges relate to ‘infotainment’ – sensationalism and triviality which are seizing an increasingly larger proportion of the media content (in mainstream dailies and weeklies and on the national public television); lack of quality investigative and follow-up reporting. Also, studies of journalism have questionable standards and too traditional curriculum (they lag behind the times, and don’t keep pace with numerous changes in the profession, such as online journalism, new communication technologies, etc…).” Croatia

    “I think the U.S. has the broadest definition of journalism in the game. The challenges facing us are 1) getting the thoughtful and intelligent content heard above the roar; 2) ensuring the economic future of journalism; 3) ensuring that journalism, freedom of the press and the freedom of citizens to inquire about and monitor their government and private industry are not unduly abridged by government.” USA

    “I suppose the definition of “journalism” in Poland is much similar to that in Britain. In my personal opinion the greatest threat comes not from bloggers and the like (who in Poland are very often journalists anyway), but from lack of professionalism and tabloidisation. Not that it will kill us soon, though.” Poland

    “As a former President of the Media Association of Trinidad and Tobago, I can say that here the agreed definition of a journalist is someone involved in the gathering and disseminating of news as their premier occupation. The Media Association was challenged for this somewhat vague definition which explicitly sought to exclude talk show hosts, newspaper columnists who were academics or otherwise employed; and other media personalities who sought to be included sometimes for no other reason than gaining access to a press pass. The debate over this issue has still not been settled and there is also some ambivalence over the status of persons who work State-owned information dissemination organisations. We now have bloggers to add to the debate.” Trinidad & Tobago

    “In my opinion, the major challenge is how to maintain high quality news reports and uphold the journalist values in such a small but extremely competitive market in HK.” Hong Kong

    “I would like to say that every journalist in my country would like to think that our profession means sourcing for the true, objective presentation of the reality and expressing the judgements. Yet, in reality, journalist often means serving the interests of the different social groups, and business in particular.” Croatia

    “As for the question about the definition of Journalism in Japan, it is difficult…actually we do not have its specific definition as there is no completely equivalent words for ‘journalism’ in Japanese language. It is a complicated linguistic matter: we imported the word ‘journalism’ in our language with Japanese pronunciation ‘ja-narizumu’, which is misunderstood as to be something quite sophisticated and somehow different from news media. How can I explain this distorted perception?” Japan

    “There are two types of definitions of journalism in America. The journalists’ definition, which British journalists would recognise, involving integrity, objectivity, rigour, etc. Then there is the definition critics of the media use. Here I mean folks who think the ‘mainstream media,’ now often identified with an acronym, MSM, has failed the USA. Those critics are on both the left and right. The left thinks the MSM has failed to capture real Americans’ lives (the experience of the dishwasher, the teacher in the classroom, the 20-something who works in an office by day and spins records by night). The right thinks the MSM is biased, and it probably is. Most MSM reporters are from the coasts or Chicago, are over-educated and have no scruples about drug use, premarital sex, homosexuality, government intervention in the economy and the other bogeymen of people from Alabama. The challenge is simply figuring out how the journalists can continue to work for publications (including websites) that make money in the face of competition from media critics who create their own publications and websites that reflect their (in my view) bowdlerised version of journalism. I see it less as an issue of journalism practice than of corporate practicality. The money people need to figure out their side. The journalists are already adapting, but can’t compromise their values too much.” USA

    ______________________________________________________________________________________________

    Penny Bright

    ‘Public Watchdog’

    Vote: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 18 You need to be logged in to vote
  53. thedavincimode (6,759 comments) says:

    They’re missing you in Sydney already madwoman.

    You should go back there. You’ll be world famous. Why be mayor of Auckland when you can be mayor of Sydney and really make some important changes.

    Vote: Thumb up 14 Thumb down 4 You need to be logged in to vote
  54. Kea (12,805 comments) says:

    Not sure about this, Kea. For example, if I run around telling the lie that “Kea has slept with unage prostitutes”, how do you “prove” that you haven’t? It seems fairer that I should have to prove that you have.

    SGA, I do get your point. I also acknowledge some well considered counter arguments to my position.

    There are pros and cons to allowing total freedom of speech. I get that. But on balance, I think more freedom is preferable to restricted freedom. Restricting freedom of speech is far more likely to result in poor outcomes.

    Vote: Thumb up 5 Thumb down 3 You need to be logged in to vote
  55. Judith (8,534 comments) says:

    As a means of mass communication, blogs can be considered as media, however, I think the definition comes in what the receiver expects to ‘receive’ or gain from the particular type of media. When one picks up the NZ Herald, for example, it can be generally believed that the facts given in it are correct (opinions are not facts). When we view advertisements (another form of media) we expect them to be factual, and even have that representation in law.

    So when someone views a blog, what do they expect? I guess that depends on the type of blog and who it belongs to. I don’t for example expect to read in the comments on here, the truth (most is opinion based) however, in DPF’s comments, I expect the facts he gives to be truthful and honest, because he has demonstrated his ability to do that (plus give opinion)

    In my opinion it could be argued quite successfully that when one reads Whaleoil’s blog, they do not expect to be told the truth, due to the nature of the many ‘dishonest’ allegations that have appeared on it over the years. Not to mention the findings of a previous law case.

    Others of you, will of course, and rightly so, defend him, saying he speaks nothing but the truth. WO should have to prove that those who read his site, do so because they consider it to be an accurate representation of ‘the news’. That is, people go there to find out what is happening in the world, and not just to read his opinion of it, or to be ‘entertained’.

    Vote: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 10 You need to be logged in to vote
  56. stephieboy (3,015 comments) says:

    As I see it there are those here who a purely politically motivated and partisan when it comes to deciding whether Cameron Slater is whatever he is in blogssphere I think Alan Wilkerson has hit the nail on the head 2.34pm,

    “It seems obvious that the law should discriminate only on what is done, not on who does it. Therefore anyone providing journalism should be entitled to any privileges pertaining and anyone (incl “journalists”) engaged in something less than that standard should not.”

    Now I bet that if Slater happened to be in the pro David Bain camp for example then I think that would elicit an entirely different response from some of the posters here i reckon. Thus it all comes down to in the end to ones personal likes and dislikes political or otherwise.

    Vote: Thumb up 5 Thumb down 3 You need to be logged in to vote
  57. Paul Marsden (998 comments) says:

    John Key stated on television that he first heard and read about Len Browns shannigans on Whaleoil.

    I wonder how our learned Judge Blackie would respond to that ?

    Vote: Thumb up 8 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  58. Weihana (4,537 comments) says:

    Kea (9,142 comments) says:
    December 2nd, 2013 at 3:06 pm

    SGA, I do get your point. I also acknowledge some well considered counter arguments to my position.

    There are pros and cons to allowing total freedom of speech. I get that. But on balance, I think more freedom is preferable to restricted freedom. Restricting freedom of speech is far more likely to result in poor outcomes.

    Freedom of speech is like any other freedom: you can do it so long as you aren’t hurting anyone else.

    The freedom to make baseless allegations about other people and to thereby harm their reputation is not “preferable”. That simply means you can go around harming people without being accountable for it. That sort of behaviour is justifiably restricted.

    If you are going to make serious accusations about a person (that is not mere opinion) that harms their reputation and causes them to suffer some sort of loss then you should make sure you have a reasonable basis for saying whatever it is you say.

    Vote: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  59. UglyTruth (4,551 comments) says:

    It seems obvious that the law should discriminate only on what is done, not on who does it.

    The rules that NZ citizens call law are not universal.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 4 You need to be logged in to vote
  60. Ryan Sproull (7,116 comments) says:

    Freedom of speech is like any other freedom: you can do it so long as you aren’t hurting anyone else.

    The freedom to make baseless allegations about other people and to thereby harm their reputation is not “preferable”. That simply means you can go around harming people without being accountable for it. That sort of behaviour is justifiably restricted.

    If you are going to make serious accusations about a person (that is not mere opinion) that harms their reputation and causes them to suffer some sort of loss then you should make sure you have a reasonable basis for saying whatever it is you say.

    Weihana,

    How does that logic apply to whistleblowers from businesses or government departments leaking evidence to bloggers?

    Vote: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  61. OTGO (549 comments) says:

    Blogs are like written talk back radio IMHO. They inform by putting up some relevant subjects and wait for a reaction. Listen to any talk back radio at the start of a shift and you’ll hear the host tell his/her listeners of some issues that he/she thinks folk might want to ring up and talk about. No different on blogs. So if Leighton Smith is a journalist then so is WOBH.

    Then again I think about Willie and JT. Were they journalists? Probably not. But who they worked for called themselves a news outlet so maybe Whale should insert a company between himself and his blog and call it WOBH News Corp.

    Vote: Thumb up 4 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  62. Hamish_NZ (46 comments) says:

    @public watchdog
    The ODT isn’t unbiased in its coverage, it frequently runs articles against students, even when students have nothing to do with the story in question. They also took a decidedly anti stadium position on the new dunedin stadium in the lead up to the vote to procede with it.
    Arguably they regularly break their own aim.

    Also I know a few statements that John Campbell has made in private to a group of friends that would disqualify him from doing any stories what so ever about Asians if he abided by this so called journalistic set of ethics. Trust me his biases show through in his reporting on this.

    I think its safer to just believe every journalist and publication has a bias, be it political, social, economic, or other, that affects how they write or present a story. And ideally for this to be listed at the bottom of every story, or on some sort of declaration page.

    And for another exanple of the ODT being biased, just look where their ex politics/economics reporter has ended up. Read those articles and tell me he wasn’t politically biased in his writing there.

    If this judges ruling is left to stand then there will be a lot of journalists/commentators in the media that will be disqualified from having source protection anymore. That’s what is worrying about this judgement.

    Vote: Thumb up 8 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  63. Weihana (4,537 comments) says:

    Ryan Sproull (6,057 comments) says:
    December 2nd, 2013 at 3:39 pm

    Weihana,

    How does that logic apply to whistleblowers from businesses or government departments leaking evidence to bloggers?

    Whistleblowing is not the telling of lies to harm one’s reputation, but the telling of secrets which may be contrary to the interests of the people trying to keep the secrets. In my view an authorized person making unauthorized disclosures should, in general, be subject to some sort of legal action (criminal if it is a state secret) while the third party subsequently publishing that information should, in general, not be liable for any action.

    Vote: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  64. Than (473 comments) says:

    In my view an authorized person making unauthorized disclosures should, in general, be subject to some sort of legal action (criminal if it is a state secret) while the third party subsequently publishing that information should, in general, not be liable for any action.

    It should be a different offense, but the publisher should absolutely be liable for some action.

    Since in many cases publication creates the incentive to make unauthorized disclosures then it follows if we want to prevent unauthorized disclosures we should try to prevent publication of unauthorized disclosures. We already have offenses like receiving stolen goods or aiding and abetting which serve similar purposes for other crimes.

    Vote: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  65. Judith (8,534 comments) says:

    @ Paul Marsden (887 comments) says:
    December 2nd, 2013 at 3:31 pm

    Are you suggesting that our legal system should be influenced by the likes and dislikes of our Prime Minister, or any politician for that matter?

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 2 You need to be logged in to vote
  66. Tom Jackson (2,553 comments) says:

    What agreement is that? I am party to no such agreement! If there is one, I want out. Journalists are not some noble creature benefiting society, they are simply employees in their employer’s mission to make a profit from selling news and opinion.

    You need to be quiet, because it’s obvious you don’t know what you are talking about. Journalists have certain legal privileges the rest of us do not have. The reason for that is that it is seen as being in society’s best interests to allow it – thus everyone who supports a free press supports it. Were there no more to it than you suggest, journalists would not have the protections they do. But they do, so you are wrong… again.

    which are extremely flexible, ill defined, advisory only, and really only a part of journalisim in recent times.

    Shows how much you know. The basics are generally agreed upon (as is the case in other areas of life). Even restricting ourselves to those Slater is out.

    Here’s a widely accepted set of ethical principles for journalists:

    1. Seek Truth and Report It.

    2. Minimise Harm.

    3. Act Independently (no conflicts of interest).

    4. Be Accountable.

    Slater has obvious problems with 2 and 3. The Chuang case involved her being treated like shit in a way that was not relevant to the public interest angle (like when Slater said that Brown had given her the clap among other episodes). There’s also good reason to suspect that he was in cahoots with the Palino campaign so that’s 3 gone too.

    It’s not just that Slater violates these principles, it is that he does so egregiously and vocally. He’s his own worst enemy.

    Vote: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 6 You need to be logged in to vote
  67. thedavincimode (6,759 comments) says:

    @ Paul Marsden (887 comments) says:
    December 2nd, 2013 at 3:31 pm

    Are you suggesting that our legal system should be influenced by the likes and dislikes of our Prime Minister, or any politician for that matter?

    WTF?? Read it again. And then think.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 2 You need to be logged in to vote
  68. Ryan Sproull (7,116 comments) says:

    Whistleblowing is not the telling of lies to harm one’s reputation, but the telling of secrets which may be contrary to the interests of the people trying to keep the secrets.

    The difference between telling a lie that harms someone’s reputation and the telling of secret truths that harm someone’s reputation is their accuracy, not the motivation behind the telling. The judge’s ruling here doesn’t seem to be, “Cameron Slater, you’re a bit of a vindictive dick, so no protection for you.” It seems to be, “Cameron Slater, blogs aren’t news, bloggers aren’t journalists, so turn over the sources you promised to protect or we’ll fuck you up.”

    I have only a cursory knowledge of everything involved here, and I realise I’m going to have to do some reading to bring myself up to speed on the letter of the law and the history behind it, but my first instinct is that I do not like this ruling.

    Vote: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  69. Kea (12,805 comments) says:

    The freedom to make baseless allegations about other people and to thereby harm their reputation is not “preferable”. That simply means you can go around harming people without being accountable for it. That sort of behaviour is justifiably restricted.

    Weihana, are the allegations baseless ? You must first prove that as a starting point, or else what you are really arguing for is not holding people to account and banning any unfavourable commentary about the corrupt or evil.

    The next issue you encounter is; Who decides what can be said and what can not ? I suggest it should be me who decides. Do you agree that I should be the one who decides what can be said by everyone else ?

    In my view your feelings, and what you imagine your reputation to be, do not trump my right to speak my mind. Your position does not credit people with much common sense. Most folk can figure out if allegations are hot air and stirring, or based on something more solid. We really don’t need busy bodies, or force of law, to tell us what to think.

    Vote: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 3 You need to be logged in to vote
  70. Kea (12,805 comments) says:

    Here’s a widely accepted set of ethical principles for journalists:

    1. Seek Truth and Report It.

    2. Minimise Harm.

    3. Act Independently (no conflicts of interest).

    4. Be Accountable.

    LOL :)

    The jokes have started early today !

    Vote: Thumb up 6 Thumb down 2 You need to be logged in to vote
  71. Paul Marsden (998 comments) says:

    thedavincimode (5,696 comments) says:

    December 2nd, 2013 at 4:31 pm
    @ Paul Marsden (887 comments) says:
    December 2nd, 2013 at 3:31 pm

    Are you suggesting that our legal system should be influenced by the likes and dislikes of our Prime Minister, or any politician for that matter?

    WTF?? Read it again. And then think.

    Vote: 0 0

    Go easy on her… Judith is probably a nice girl. She’s just a bit slow, thats all.

    Vote: Thumb up 4 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  72. UglyTruth (4,551 comments) says:

    “What agreement is that? I am party to no such agreement! If there is one, I want out. Journalists are not some noble creature benefiting society, they are simply employees in their employer’s mission to make a profit from selling news and opinion.”

    You need to be quiet, because it’s obvious you don’t know what you are talking about.

    What’s the threat? Having argued with FES before, I think it’s unlikely that the implied threat would cause him any undue anxiety.

    An agreement is not the same thing as a vague arrangement relating to journalistic ethics existing between the corporate media and human society.

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 2 You need to be logged in to vote
  73. Rowan (2,316 comments) says:

    Stephieboy @3.18

    Another idiot who bases their views of individuals on what one thinks of the Bain case, are you really that shallow minded?
    I have a low opinion of Whale and this is not solely based on his opinion of Bain. I am not that shallow.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 6 You need to be logged in to vote
  74. Kea (12,805 comments) says:

    Are you suggesting that our legal system should be influenced by the likes and dislikes of our Prime Minister, or any politician for that matter?

    Politicians make our laws.

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 3 You need to be logged in to vote
  75. Longknives (4,739 comments) says:

    Here’s a widely accepted set of ethical principles for journalists:”
    1. Seek Truth and Report It.
    2. Minimise Harm.
    3. Act Independently (no conflicts of interest).
    4. Be Accountable.”

    Sheesh Tom- You are joking right?
    Pal I sat through one long year of Journalism school and we were encouraged to chase headlines and to court controversy. Nothing ‘Noble’ about the profession at all mate…

    Vote: Thumb up 4 Thumb down 3 You need to be logged in to vote
  76. Bad__Cat (140 comments) says:

    Geez, Tom. Cut the bullshit. Using your “criteria” , the Herald fails on 1, 2, 3 & 4.
    1. They go out and selectively look for “facts” that suit the story they have decided on
    2. Do the Herald reporters ever care about this when they write about the National Party?
    3. They have embedded their staff with persons they support
    4. When have any of their staff ever been accountable,

    Vote: Thumb up 7 Thumb down 2 You need to be logged in to vote
  77. Weihana (4,537 comments) says:

    Than (243 comments) says:
    December 2nd, 2013 at 4:16 pm

    In my view an authorized person making unauthorized disclosures should, in general, be subject to some sort of legal action (criminal if it is a state secret) while the third party subsequently publishing that information should, in general, not be liable for any action.

    It should be a different offense, but the publisher should absolutely be liable for some action.

    Since in many cases publication creates the incentive to make unauthorized disclosures then it follows if we want to prevent unauthorized disclosures we should try to prevent publication of unauthorized disclosures. We already have offenses like receiving stolen goods or aiding and abetting which serve similar purposes for other crimes.

    The penalty for the authorized person making disclosures creates an incentive not to disclose. Refer Bradley Manning.

    There is a balance to be obtained here. Whistleblowers can serve a democratic purpose and expose corruption. But they can also compromise security. You can’t focus solely on one objective while ignoring the potential downsides.

    Vote: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 2 You need to be logged in to vote
  78. thedavincimode (6,759 comments) says:

    People, people …

    Tom didn’t actually say that everyone followed them. :)

    He just identified them and stated his view of where Oil fell short. And it’s hard to argue with his final conclusion.

    Vote: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 2 You need to be logged in to vote
  79. Constantine (2 comments) says:

    If Slater isn’t a Journalist, and does not distribute news within a recognised news medium: why is it that every mainstream media organisation regularly interview him as a media commentator, or instead steal his stuff from his blog, without attribution? Let Judge Blackie manage that wee dichotomy with a straight face.

    Vote: Thumb up 4 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  80. Albert_Ross (291 comments) says:

    When one picks up the NZ Herald, for example, it can be generally believed that the facts given in it are correct (opinions are not facts).

    Can it? What is in place to assure us of that?

    Vote: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  81. Weihana (4,537 comments) says:

    Kea (9,145 comments) says:
    December 2nd, 2013 at 4:43 pm

    Weihana, are the allegations baseless ?

    If one cannot show some basis for their allegations it would seem to be a reasonable presumption.

    or else what you are really arguing for is not holding people to account

    Account for what? That someone makes up something about someone else does not mean they should account for what has just been made up.

    banning any unfavourable commentary about the corrupt or evil

    Matters of opinion are protected.

    In my view your feelings, and what you imagine your reputation to be, do not trump my right to speak my mind.

    A plaintiff in a defamation case must prove some sort of harm.

    My understanding is that defamation cases are easy to bring but difficult to win.

    Vote: Thumb up 4 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  82. Judith (8,534 comments) says:

    @ Albert_Ross (96 comments) says:
    December 2nd, 2013 at 5:09 pm

    Although there are some ‘standards’ the most effective is public opinion. Should the Herald or any other paper constantly publish lies, then they would frequently be sued for defamation and the public would make it known that the ‘facts’ were wrong. It would have gone out of business years ago (I repeat, opinions aren’t facts – just because they don’t share the same opinion as most on this blog, does not mean they are publish fiction as fact).

    Take a look at some of the recent newspapers and magazines that have recently gone out of business, and you’ll get an idea of those that are unable to retain the semblance of respectability that the public requires.

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 2 You need to be logged in to vote
  83. Kea (12,805 comments) says:

    Weihana, you addressed most of my points, but overlooked one of them. Perhaps the most important one.

    Why do you think other people need people (like you) to tell us what to think ?

    Why can we not decide for ourselves what allegations are true and what are not ?

    Vote: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 3 You need to be logged in to vote
  84. Judith (8,534 comments) says:

    @ Kea (9,145 comments) says:
    December 2nd, 2013 at 4:52 pm

    Surely you are not serious in advocating that as John Key reads Cameron Slater’s blog, Mr Slater should be immune from prosecution?

    FFS – I’ve seen some hairbrained statements on here Kea, but really !!!!

    Vote: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 2 You need to be logged in to vote
  85. Judith (8,534 comments) says:

    Kea (9,146 comments) says:
    December 2nd, 2013 at 5:18 pm
    Weihana, you addressed most of my points, but overlooked one of them. Perhaps the most important one.

    Why do you think other people need people (like you) to tell us what to think ?

    Why can we not decide for ourselves what allegations are true and what are not ?

    I think this blog and perhaps others like facebook etc, who have loose moderation are evidence of why that cannot happen. People have emotive sides, and when they are left to their own devices, without rules to regulate them, then they tend to go ‘over the top’ and cause harm to others – intentional or not, we are meant to be the civilised ones, not the animals. Because of the propensity to engage the emotions, we need some controlling factors – the question is how much, what is the balance? Without it, we have anarchy.

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  86. Kea (12,805 comments) says:

    Judith (4,659 comments) says:
    December 2nd, 2013 at 5:20 pm
    @ Kea (9,145 comments) says:
    December 2nd, 2013 at 4:52 pm

    Surely you are not serious in advocating that as John Key reads Cameron Slater’s blog, Mr Slater should be immune from prosecution?

    FFS – I’ve seen some hairbrained statements on here Kea, but really !!!!

    Judith, dear. I did not say that. I think you better check.

    I said “Politicians make our laws.” @ 4:52 :)

    Vote: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 2 You need to be logged in to vote
  87. thedavincimode (6,759 comments) says:

    FFS – I’ve seen some hairbrained statements on here

    Too easy. So I’ll just say nothing.

    Vote: Thumb up 4 Thumb down 2 You need to be logged in to vote
  88. Paul Marsden (998 comments) says:

    thedavincimode (5,700 comments) says:

    December 2nd, 2013 at 5:28 pm
    FFS – I’ve seen some hairbrained statements on here

    Too easy. So I’ll just say nothing.

    Vote: 1 0

    Give Judith time chaps and the penny might just drop…..Eventually (sigh).

    Vote: Thumb up 4 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  89. goldnkiwi (1,303 comments) says:

    Did I miss something as to why this matter was in the District Court in the first instance?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 2 You need to be logged in to vote
  90. thedavincimode (6,759 comments) says:

    Paul M

    Just don’t mention the ‘B’ word. :lol:

    Vote: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 2 You need to be logged in to vote
  91. F E Smith (3,305 comments) says:

    You need to be quiet, because it’s obvious you don’t know what you are talking about.

    Oh!  The pain! Struck through the heart by your rapier-like reply! Oh, the humanity…

    :D Sheesh, that time of the month for you, is it?

    Now that is out of the way, I still disagree with you.  I have no problem with the concept of a free press; government should not in any way control what a private company says, with the exception of official secrets and so forth.  However, I remain unconvinced by the need for the official protection of journalist’s sources (which is really only available if it suits the Court, so is more tokenism than anything truly substantial).

    The fact remains that journalists are making a living from reporting news, whatever that may mean to them.  They are (theoretically) a profit-making enterprise and as such are of no greater value to ‘society’ than my local trucking firm/s.  We did fine before the press got all high and mighty about their own value and will do fine again if they cease to exist.

    Quite frankly, I think that most journalists are scum-sucking parasites with an inflated self-worth, who think that reporting what other people have done in the world makes themselves important.

    But I really don’t buy this society crap that you lefties like to spout.  I am me.  I speak for me.  I have freedoms and I have responsibilities.  The concept of society as peddled by people like you can go fornicate itself.

    Vote: Thumb up 9 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  92. F E Smith (3,305 comments) says:

    2. Minimise Harm.

    Well, there goes the New York Times’ and the Guardian’s reputations…

    Vote: Thumb up 6 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  93. thedavincimode (6,759 comments) says:

    FES

    You’ve missed the most fundamental of points. There are no reputations at stake here.

    Vote: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 2 You need to be logged in to vote
  94. Kea (12,805 comments) says:

    Quite frankly, I think that most journalists are scum-sucking parasites with an inflated self-worth, who think that reporting what other people have done in the world makes themselves important.

    But I really don’t buy this society crap that you lefties like to spout. I am me. I speak for me. I have freedoms and I have responsibilities. The concept of society as peddled by people like you can go fornicate itself.

    Tick tick , well said :)

    Vote: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 3 You need to be logged in to vote
  95. F E Smith (3,305 comments) says:

    tdm,

    eh? What am I missing?

    EDIT: That downtick wasn’t me, by the way.

    Vote: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  96. thedavincimode (6,759 comments) says:

    That there are no reputations at stake here. :)

    Can I quote your good self:

    I think that most journalists are scum-sucking parasites with an inflated self-worth, who think that reporting what other people have done in the world makes themselves important.

    I know it wasn’t you. I’ve acquired a stalker. It’s good when the hard work pays off! :)

    Vote: Thumb up 4 Thumb down 2 You need to be logged in to vote
  97. F E Smith (3,305 comments) says:

    tdm,

    gotcha! :D (It is the end of a long day. Do I sound a little grumpy?)

    You have a stalker?? Congrats on all of the hard work!!

    Vote: Thumb up 4 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  98. nickb (3,687 comments) says:

    Quite frankly, I think that most journalists are scum-sucking parasites with an inflated self-worth, who think that reporting what other people have done in the world makes themselves important.

    Yes!

    Vote: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  99. thedavincimode (6,759 comments) says:

    FES

    No, just slow from a long day.

    Actually, I think I’ve acquired about four of them. I had five but one left.

    But I should warn you, if you want one yourself, you have to put the effort in! But it’s worth the effort, despite the hard grind, the slog – day in, day out. :)

    Nothing comes easy but I don’t have to tell you that.

    Vote: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 2 You need to be logged in to vote
  100. F E Smith (3,305 comments) says:

    Actually, I think I’ve acquired about four of them. I had five but one left.

    Now, now, you need to treat your stalkers better if you want them to keep you happy…

    I have had the odd one or two, but I find ignoring them does me fine.  I am all for freedom of speech and freedom of expression, but I especially like freedom to ignore.

    Except when the wife is talking, in which case that last one doesn’t exist!

    Vote: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  101. Kea (12,805 comments) says:

    I am just grateful that busy bodies and other self important types take the time to tell me what to take seriously when I read the news/blogs.

    Where would we all be if not for priggish authoritarians telling us all what to think and what to do ? :)

    Vote: Thumb up 4 Thumb down 2 You need to be logged in to vote
  102. Weihana (4,537 comments) says:

    Kea (9,148 comments) says:
    December 2nd, 2013 at 5:18 pm

    Weihana, you addressed most of my points, but overlooked one of them. Perhaps the most important one.

    Why do you think other people need people (like you) to tell us what to think ?

    Why can we not decide for ourselves what allegations are true and what are not ?

    I don’t accept your premise. People are free to think what they like. They are not free to make a false statement that harms another person. Such action reasonably makes them liable to pay compensation to the person they have harmed. This does not prevent them from thinking for themselves or deciding for themselves what to believe. Truth is a defense to defamation as well as that the communication was opinion.

    Vote: Thumb up 4 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  103. Kea (12,805 comments) says:

    Weihana, recently a case was mentioned where someone had to pay $100,000 for calling another person a “lying slut”.

    1. What monetary harm was done to justify that payment ?

    2. What enquiry was made into the plaintiffs truthfulness and slutyness ?

    Or was it really just a pay out because someone did not like being taken to task ? Was it really monetary damage or just a sook whinging about their hurt feelings ?

    Vote: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 3 You need to be logged in to vote
  104. Pauleastbay (5,035 comments) says:

    Everyone of us are journalists , the smart phone now gives us all a better opportunity to relate events than those paid by the papers et

    If not, why do the newspapers want our photo’s etc from the scenes of tragedies? ( apart from being too bloody lazy to actually leave the office). My photo is the same as that taken by someone paid by Fairfax ,so no difference.

    Media has never reported impartially anyway. Only the misguided have believed that in 1953 the Herald reported things impartially. During the wars we know we were fed censored news. Read the Guardian and the Telegraph most often its very hard to believe events are actually the same.

    Blogs are no different from the pamphlateers like Benjiman Franklin and others from years gone by. Its information , you can consume it or not.

    Vote: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 2 You need to be logged in to vote
  105. publicwatchdog (2,593 comments) says:

    “They’re missing you in Sydney already madwoman.”

    Really ‘thedavincimode’ ?

    The fact that you reply to my considered opinion with a personal attack shows that I must have hit a nerve?

    Perhaps several?

    You have NO idea how much you have made my day :)

    Keep going………

    Kind regards,

    Penny Bright

    ‘Public Watchdog – Private Ombudsman’

    http://www.pennybright4mayor.org.nz

    Vote: Thumb up 6 Thumb down 13 You need to be logged in to vote
  106. nickb (3,687 comments) says:

    If blogs aren’t media, then Penny Bright is a public watchdog.

    Vote: Thumb up 8 Thumb down 2 You need to be logged in to vote
  107. big bruv (13,886 comments) says:

    Penny.

    Never mind all that. Just pay your bloody rates.

    While I have you Penny, are you also on the dole or receiving any income at all from the tax payer?

    Vote: Thumb up 6 Thumb down 4 You need to be logged in to vote
  108. Kea (12,805 comments) says:

    nickb, you can not say that. You might damage Penny’s reputation or feelings.

    Her feelings are more important than your freedom.

    At least that is how things are in Weihanastan/ hell on earth.

    Vote: Thumb up 6 Thumb down 3 You need to be logged in to vote
  109. big bruv (13,886 comments) says:

    If you all want a bloody good laugh go and have a gander at Penny’s blog. The heading is all about fighting corruption.

    This from a person who refuses to pay her rates and is allowed to get away with it.

    Is that not corruption?

    Vote: Thumb up 9 Thumb down 3 You need to be logged in to vote
  110. Longknives (4,739 comments) says:

    Bruv- I see Penny has listed her Kiwibank (Beneficiary bank) account number for ‘Donations’ to help her ongoing fight against Corruption!
    If, in the highly unlikely scenario of anyone actually being retarded enough to give her some cash, she makes any money- do you reckon she declares that to WINZ etc?

    Vote: Thumb up 4 Thumb down 3 You need to be logged in to vote
  111. Weihana (4,537 comments) says:

    Kea (9,152 comments) says:
    December 2nd, 2013 at 6:45 pm

    Weihana, recently a case was mentioned where someone had to pay $100,000 for calling another person a “lying slut”.

    1. What monetary harm was done to justify that payment ?

    2. What enquiry was made into the plaintiffs truthfulness and slutyness ?

    Or was it really just a pay out because someone did not like being taken to task ? Was it really monetary damage or just a sook whinging about their hurt feelings ?

    1. My understanding of NZ law is that it is not necessary to prove special damages.

    2. Truth is a defence to a claim of defamation. The onus of proof is on the defendant.

    I don’t know any other particulars of this case though the damages sound pretty severe. To me the statement seems to be simply vulgar abuse, rather than something to be taken literally. But this may depend on context. Vulgar abuse doesn’t seem to be a defence in the Defamation Act so I’m not sure if that applies.

    Vote: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  112. Pauleastbay (5,035 comments) says:

    Wouldnt another defence be (according to the Judge Whale is not media) that in reality only 1% of the population look at his blog and this number is too small to actually be seen to do any harm. Even if its shown the posts had say 5000 visits you can bet 50% would have been re-visits like you do on here if you have a argument or conversation going.

    I read Whales postings on this and nothing stuck anyway aprt from Hells Pizza and thats was like most advertising to me, swoosh’ as it went over .. There was nothing posted that made me go hell’s bells that’s interesting

    Vote: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 2 You need to be logged in to vote
  113. nasska (11,478 comments) says:

    Weihana & Kea

    In the case you are referring to, damages of $40K were awarded plus costs.

    Ref: http://www.odt.co.nz/regions/southland/283404/no-defamation-appeal

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  114. Kea (12,805 comments) says:

    nasska, thanks for that. The point remains. What was damaged ?

    Imagine if everyone got forty grand for every time Red gave them a serve :)

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  115. nasska (11,478 comments) says:

    I’d be a multi millionaire Kea. :)

    Vote: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  116. Nostalgia-NZ (5,195 comments) says:

    It’s not about ‘another’ defence PEB at this point, it’s about disclosure of the source of information to see if there was a malicious intention and no doubt to test its validity. From the point of view of the nature of your past employment, you would have been arguing that if he had nothing to ‘hjde’ about his intention then he would reveal the source or offer to let a Judge scrutinise the information?

    On the same point you raised last night, wasn’t Slater’s earlier defence of the suppression orders that either he wasn’t a ‘publisher’ or a ‘reporter?’

    Vote: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  117. MT_Tinman (3,184 comments) says:

    Quite frankly, I think that most journalists are scum-sucking parasites with an inflated self-worth, who think that reporting what other people have done in the world makes themselves important.

    I’m afraid I don’t have quite as high an opinion of the slime as you.

    Vote: Thumb up 5 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  118. Sofia (856 comments) says:

    Penny – I would have thought that, if you were really any sort of public watchdog, you would have by now alerted the Auckland public as to how inefficient, inept or politically cowardly the Council is at collecting rates off people who haven’t paid them since two thousand and fucking eight.

    Vote: Thumb up 5 Thumb down 2 You need to be logged in to vote
  119. Pauleastbay (5,035 comments) says:

    On the same point you raised last night, wasn’t Slater’s earlier defence of the suppression orders that either he wasn’t a ‘publisher’ or a ‘reporter?’

    I don’t remember Nosty but the Judge found he was. Its ironic this time hes saying he is and the Judge is the contrarian.

    Things have changed re: informants and that sort of thing, but towards the end of my stellar police career you had to name your informants , it wasn’t disclosed but it had to go on the warrant application. Probably a good thing, there used to be lots a “reliable informants’ floating about.

    I can’t see anything wrong in telling a Judge who the HDD came from I’d just be a bit worried about this particular Judge as he’s been really narrow in his definitions according to the legal beagles who have written about this today.

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  120. Rowan (2,316 comments) says:

    Whales defence is crap, even if you consider him to be a ‘journalist’ why does that give him immunity from having to reveal his sources? If he has nothing to hide then whats the harm in revealing his source, or you could get sued for defamation, taken to court, spend a lot on defending yourself for (in all likelihood) the judge making a ruling against you and forcing you to anyway.
    Its a good point made by DPF.

    Vote: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 6 You need to be logged in to vote
  121. Pauleastbay (5,035 comments) says:

    It’s not about ‘another’ defence PEB at this point, it’s about disclosure of the source of information to see if there was a malicious intention

    Well that obvious, hell hath no fury etc etc.

    People nark you up for a reason. That HDD wasn’t given to Whale for any other reason than who ever did it wanted the shit put into this hells Pizza guy.

    Bevan Chuang hasn’t gone to Whale for any other reason than Lying Lenny had dumped her. She wanted the shit put in.

    No different from the cuppa tea saga with the PM and Banksie, someone wanted the shit put in.

    Can someone show me the legislation that gives definitive immunity to journalists anyway. Act and section please or is it one of these gentleman’s agreements that’s become pseudo law and accepted without question.

    Vote: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  122. Rowan (2,316 comments) says:

    FES
    If truth is raised as a defence then does this protect the individual i.e. The Whale and his bigmouth creating a media trial of Len Brown? Should it? I’d say no definitely not and as long as the plaintiff can show that the actions of the defendant are defamatory then the defendant is guilty. It relates quite well to Keas example of the ‘lying slut’ as well

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 4 You need to be logged in to vote
  123. gump (1,647 comments) says:

    @Kea

    “Tom, at last we agree. All New Zealanders should have 100% freedom of expression, with out fear of government censorship (which is what legal proceedings are in this case).

    No exceptions. Ever.0

    ————————–

    Excuse me?

    Cameron Slater is being sued by another citizen who has initiated a private civil proceeding. The Government is not censoring Whaleoil and has no involvement in this case.

    Your comment on 100% freedom of expression is equally idiotic. Are bomb threats protected speech?

    Vote: Thumb up 5 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  124. Nostalgia-NZ (5,195 comments) says:

    It’s in the heading above PEB S 68 Evidence Act, and includes the discretion of a Judge to view the information and presumably know the source. That seems reasonable. I don’t know any details at all about this case, but by one definition the argument is knowing your ‘accuser.’ Slater is putting that in his back pocket on the basis that he is a reporter and therefore for all intents and purposes is evoking a reporter’s ‘right’s under the act. If as you say it is about ‘wanted to put the shit in’ it looks pretty relevant to know the motivation of the source.

    Vote: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  125. F E Smith (3,305 comments) says:

    Rowan,

    if it is true then it is not defamatory.  It might be damaging, but it is not defamatory. However, as Weihana noted above, the defendant who raises truth as a defence must prove it.

    Vote: Thumb up 5 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  126. UglyTruth (4,551 comments) says:

    Politicians make our laws.

    Spoken like a true human being.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  127. gump (1,647 comments) says:

    @Pauleastbay

    The legal provision for journalists to conceal their sources is explicitly defined in the Evidence Act.

    Here is a link to the relevant section of the legislation.

    http://www.legislation.govt.nz/act/public/2006/0069/latest/DLM393681.html

    Vote: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  128. Rowan (2,316 comments) says:

    Agree somewhat FE but Whale has gone overboard here, in this case it would be hard to argue that Cam didn’t intend to cause a media witch-hunt for Len Brown. Whether that constitutes defamation is the argument here. If its just damaging and not defamation then it would be torts, would it not?

    Vote: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 3 You need to be logged in to vote
  129. Pauleastbay (5,035 comments) says:

    journalist means a person who in the normal course of that person’s work may be given information by an informant in the expectation that the information may be published in a news medium
    news medium means a medium for the dissemination to the public or a section of the public of news and observations on news

    reading this from the evidence act make its pretty plain that whales a journalist and his blog is a news medium.

    reading the reat of it, if whale can prove that naming his informant will get him killed or hurt, defence- or he just proves that what he published is true

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  130. Pauleastbay (5,035 comments) says:

    Back to S68.

    Pretty antiquated bit of legislation really, what makes reporters so fucking special. I interview people everyday in relation to crimes and I have no legislation to protect any informants, I just have to use common sense and be completely upfront with people.

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  131. Rowan (2,316 comments) says:

    Both pretty arguable points PEB especially the ‘journalist’ part

    Vote: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 2 You need to be logged in to vote
  132. Pauleastbay (5,035 comments) says:

    Rowan

    I’d have thought that”s about the clearest piece of a statute I’ve seen written anywhere on our books

    Vote: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  133. UglyTruth (4,551 comments) says:

    journalist means a person who in the normal course of that person’s work may be given information by an informant in the
    expectation that the information may be published in a news medium

    Journalists don’t have do be persons. This is especially relevant in the internet age where publishers and readers do not necessarily fall under any particular legal jurisdiction.

    Vote: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 2 You need to be logged in to vote
  134. Nostalgia-NZ (5,195 comments) says:

    ‘Back to S68.

    Pretty antiquated bit of legislation really, what makes reporters so fucking special. I interview people everyday in relation to crimes and I have no legislation to protect any informants, I just have to use common sense and be completely upfront with people’

    Critical reporting is a good thing PEB, something from the inside in a newsworthy situation, the legislation captures that. But it doesn’t offer a comfort blanket for a potential vendetta without supporting details to prove that it is in fact not a vendetta but a matter of public interest.

    Vote: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  135. Rowan (2,316 comments) says:

    PEB
    Yes the legislation that applies to journalists is fairly straightforward. Whale is a blogger, as is Nos and a number of others here who would probably not try to pass themselves of as ‘journalists’
    As Nos says is this (the Len Brown scandal) a ‘vendetta’ or a matter of ‘public interest’?

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 3 You need to be logged in to vote
  136. Dennis Horne (2,403 comments) says:

    @Moron. You know who you are. What do you know?

    Vote: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 5 You need to be logged in to vote
  137. itstricky (1,830 comments) says:

    The judge’s ruling here doesn’t seem to be, “Cameron Slater, you’re a bit of a vindictive dick, so no protection for you.” It seems to be, “Cameron Slater, blogs aren’t news, bloggers aren’t journalists, so turn over the sources you promised to protect or we’ll fuck you up.”

    It’s either one of these two, that’s for sure. And just as Tom said above, blogs can media if the are correctly handled. WO isn’t – it’s a public, vindictive, soap box. The guy goes out of his way to say “I’m gonna get so and so” and “wait until I get this juicy bit of rumor out” “So and so is a blah blah blah” etc It’s like high school playground material. The author starting like that is not a particularly high threshold for “the reduction of abusive speech” nor meeting any of the losely defined “goals” of a journalist.

    Thus… the judge has ruled that it is not media. I don’t think any of the professionally run blogs (this one included) have anything to fear from this. But that’s a complete layman’s opinion, obviously.

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  138. thedavincimode (6,759 comments) says:

    The fact that you reply to my considered opinion

    madwomanwithdeadcatonhead

    Tragically, what you appear to consider as a “considered opinion” is little more than a Charles III parked prominently on the corner of Disneyland Ave and Occupy Misappropriation Lane. Your part of town I understand.

    Vote: Thumb up 4 Thumb down 3 You need to be logged in to vote
  139. Dennis Horne (2,403 comments) says:

    When Slater’s memory returns, perhaps he will remember he found the computer — or whatever is the cause of this hiccough — on his doorstep.

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 5 You need to be logged in to vote
  140. itstricky (1,830 comments) says:

    But it doesn’t offer a comfort blanket for a potential vendetta without supporting details to prove that it is in fact not a vendetta but a matter of public interest

    And you read my mind. It’s a bit hard to say it is not a vendetta when you publically write “I’m gonna get Len Brown – he’s goin’ down”. And that’s obviously about the tenth time (that I’ve read and I don’t visit often at all) he has “brain-splatted” onto the digital medium his vindictiveness.

    Thus…it has been determined that he is not media.

    Vote: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 2 You need to be logged in to vote
  141. thedavincimode (6,759 comments) says:

    FES

    I seem to recall that “truth” isn’t a defence if it is gratuitous/malicious????

    Kind of been assuming that the ultimate issue was the damage suffered to a non-entity.

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  142. Kea (12,805 comments) says:

    Cameron Slater is being sued by another citizen who has initiated a private civil proceeding. The Government is not censoring Whaleoil and has no involvement in this case.

    The government is involved. Government appointed Courts are acting against Whale. Remove the government from the equation and what has the “citizen” got ? Nothing.

    Perhaps you would feel more at home in North Korea. They share your views. Speech is just that, speech. It is nothing more than sounds. The meaning is purely subjective. Speech can only harm if you choose to make it harm. What you are really rallying against is freedom of thought, not of speech.

    Vote: Thumb up 4 Thumb down 4 You need to be logged in to vote
  143. Paul Marsden (998 comments) says:

    Speaking of defamation law, here’s a question for FE Smith et al…

    What remedies are available to an individual, who has had their reputation impugned by defamatory comments made by a High Court judge in an open court, and where that individual (who is not a party to the proceedings) is unable to defend themselves? Worse, the Judge’s extraordinay comments were based on perjured evidence.

    Vote: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  144. Dennis Horne (2,403 comments) says:

    I have email correspondence from the Herald. Apparently Bain should get compensation regardless. Truth, honour, decency and balance or a campaign?

    The Herald has a high regard for free speech if it’s what the Herald wants to say. Now, Whale Oil …

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 5 You need to be logged in to vote
  145. Kea (12,805 comments) says:

    Is it Safe ?, you are a bit cryptic on this one.

    1. Do you believe in life affirming free thought ?

    2. Or are you are you a control freak who wishes to use the sanctions of the armed state to force his views upon myself and others, while packing kids mouths with amalgam all day to make them dumb and compliant to your will ?

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 3 You need to be logged in to vote
  146. Dennis Horne (2,403 comments) says:

    @Kea. I want to be a god. If I can’t be a god, I want to be a dog. To bark up the wrong tree if I choose…

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 4 You need to be logged in to vote
  147. goldnkiwi (1,303 comments) says:

    I am sure you can make god, dog, blog, bog, sod into an ode Dennis. ;)

    Vote: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 2 You need to be logged in to vote
  148. gump (1,647 comments) says:

    @Kea

    “The government is involved. Government appointed Courts are acting against Whale. Remove the government from the equation and what has the “citizen” got ? Nothing.”

    ———————-

    More idiocy. Do you know *anything* about our legal system?

    The New Zealand Government is based on the Westminster model which means that there is a separation of powers between the Executive, the Legislature and the Judiciary.

    Each Judge holds their authority as an individual. Nobody – not even the Chief Justice – can direct individual members of the Judiciary with respect to their decisions.

    And yet you are claiming the Government is acting against Whale. Matt Blomfied has initiated a private civil proceeding against Whale. To suggest that the Government is acting through Matt Blomfield is laughably absurd.

    Vote: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 2 You need to be logged in to vote
  149. Kea (12,805 comments) says:

    Dennis, that’s enough nitrous oxide for you tonight ! You are making bereal sound lucid.

    Or has all that mercury and fluoride finally caught up with you after years of serving the Illuminati ?

    Vote: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  150. Kea (12,805 comments) says:

    More idiocy. Do you know *anything* about our legal system?

    Gimp, yes a tad.

    I was going to address the separation of powers in my comment, but I thought you would not be that stupid and did not wish to insult your intelligence. I won’t make that mistake again.

    The Courts are appointed by government authority. Judges are paid for by government, along with supporting staff and the buildings Courts are held in. The separation of powers is in the operation of the Judiciary, not in their appointment. Pop down the library and get a basic introduction to the legal system. Quick, before Ugly borrows it !

    Vote: Thumb up 4 Thumb down 4 You need to be logged in to vote
  151. goldnkiwi (1,303 comments) says:

    So a partisan or non-partisan conspiracy against Whale then?

    Vote: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  152. gump (1,647 comments) says:

    @Kea

    “Perhaps you would feel more at home in North Korea. They share your views. Speech is just that, speech. It is nothing more than sounds. The meaning is purely subjective. Speech can only harm if you choose to make it harm. What you are really rallying against is freedom of thought, not of speech.”

    ———————–

    Speech is not simply speech. Your argument that speech should be 100% protected at all times is retarded.

    Threats against life and property, and calls to incite violence are illegal speech. The Government can – and should – censor this speech in the Public Interest.

    If you believe freedom of speech is absolute, try threatening the life of the American President in a public forum. The Secret Service is known to investigate all threats against the POTUS.

    Vote: Thumb up 4 Thumb down 2 You need to be logged in to vote
  153. Dennis Horne (2,403 comments) says:

    @Kea. You should have said “state”, not “government”. For those without gumption.

    @GoldenKiwi. As long as you don’t add “odd” you’re my friend. :) :) :)

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 4 You need to be logged in to vote
  154. F E Smith (3,305 comments) says:

    it would be hard to argue that Cam didn’t intend to cause a media witch-hunt for Len Brown

    Not really at issue when it comes to defamation.  Motivation for revealing information is rarely relevant.

    I seem to recall that “truth” isn’t a defence if it is gratuitous/malicious????

    I think you are confusing a defence of truth with the popular concept of the defence of honest opinion, tdm.  The Defamation Act says that:

    In proceedings for defamation, a defence of truth shall succeed if—

    (a) the defendant proves that the imputations contained in the matter that is the subject of the proceedings were true, or not materially different from the truth; or

    so if what Whale is saying is true, then he has an absolute defence.  With regards an opinion, however, motivation still does not defeat the defence so long as the opinion was genuine.

    Vote: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  155. gump (1,647 comments) says:

    @Kea

    “The Courts are appointed by government authority. Judges are paid for by government, along with supporting staff and the buildings Courts are held in. The separation of powers is in the operation of the Judiciary, not in their appointment. Pop down the library and get a basic introduction to the legal system. Quick, before Ugly borrows it !”

    —————————-

    More idiocy. You really do know *nothing* about our legal system.

    Judicial appointments to the Supreme Court, Court of Appeal and High Court are made by the Governor-General. Not the Government.

    Judicial appointments to District Courts are also made by the Governor General. Again – not the Government.

    Vote: Thumb up 4 Thumb down 2 You need to be logged in to vote
  156. F E Smith (3,305 comments) says:

    Government appointed Courts are acting against Whale.

    This is untrue.  A Court is merely an arbiter between two parties, in this case an arbiter that is appointed by and sits on behalf of the Monarch (generally.  The action taken against Whale is by another party claiming to have been injured by what Whale said. 

    The Court did not institute the action, nor can it be said in any way to be acting against Whale.

    Vote: Thumb up 6 Thumb down 2 You need to be logged in to vote
  157. F E Smith (3,305 comments) says:

    Paul Marsden,

    An interesting question, but one that, if correct (and any story always has two sides), then avenues are very limited.  That person could try the Judicial Conduct Commissioner.   However, I would hope that such a complainant could actually and positively prove perjury, for a start, in which case a complaint to the Police over that might be a better place to start.

    Vote: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  158. goldnkiwi (1,303 comments) says:

    I believe that the doctrine of Separation of Powers in NZ operates as a convention as opposed to a Law, as we have no constitution as such.

    Although Government generally does not criticise the Judiciary and vice versa there have been exceptions. Sian Elias if I recall correctly.

    Vote: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 2 You need to be logged in to vote
  159. Kea (12,805 comments) says:

    Threats against life and property, and calls to incite violence are illegal speech. The Government can – and should – censor this speech in the Public Interest.

    Gimp, So why do you call on the “Government” to censor speech and not the “Courts” ? [see if F E Smith can help you talk your way out of that one ]

    Or are you simply suggesting the Government act outside of the legal system ?

    The Court did not institute the action, nor can it be said in any way to be acting against Whale.

    F E Smith, I see your point and it is bullshit. A test of that is: What happens if Whale ignores the order ? You know better than this so don’t get lost in an attempt to cut down Kea.

    The Courts have no authority beyond what the government allows them. The orders of the Court are enforced by the government. It is irrelevant who initiated the proceedings. It is government mandated law.

    Vote: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 3 You need to be logged in to vote
  160. Random Punter (72 comments) says:

    FES

    I seem to recall that, in English law at any rate, truth alone is not a defence to a charge of criminal libel. It also has to be proved that publication was in the public interest.

    Do you know if this is correct, or am I imagining it?

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  161. Kea (12,805 comments) says:

    Judicial appointments to the Supreme Court, Court of Appeal and High Court are made by the Governor-General. Not the Government.

    Judicial appointments to District Courts are also made by the Governor General. Again – not the Government.

    LOL :) Keep em coming !!!

    Using that logic, all legislation is made by the Governor General when he gives the Royal Assent. Not by Parliament and our elected leaders. Nope. It is all done by Jerry Mateparae. :) :) :)

    You fucking retard.

    Vote: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 4 You need to be logged in to vote
  162. Rowan (2,316 comments) says:

    “What do you know?”

    A whole lot more than Denny the fuckwit, you are starting to make the mug look intelligent, You two really would be the two thickest pieces of pig shit on the planet, (and that is being polite to pig shit)
    Do everyone a favour and get yourself a doctors referral to the Mason Clinic.

    Taken anymore urethral samples recently? Wasn’t Beyonds piece entertaining?

    and i’ll add your predictable reply “moron” try to be more original

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 8 You need to be logged in to vote
  163. Kea (12,805 comments) says:

    Threats against life and property, and calls to incite violence are illegal speech. The Government can – and should – censor this speech in the Public Interest.

    Yes they do that all the time in North Korea. “Inciting violence” against a murdering oppressive regime, can and should be censored… in the “Public Interest”.

    The exact same reason given by the KGB, Stasi and every other bunch of torturing murdering government sadists… and you.

    Vote: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 3 You need to be logged in to vote
  164. Rowan (2,316 comments) says:

    Kea
    Yes join Kent and the mug, they publicly stated online that they would move to be moving there if a certain judge made a certain finding.
    As they are both serial liars I wouldn’t trust a single thing either of them said ever, but it would be an appropriate punishment for Kent don’t you think for the judge to make?

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 7 You need to be logged in to vote
  165. Kea (12,805 comments) says:

    Rowan, why stick around suffering here in NZ – where you risk someone saying nasty things about you – when you can move to places like North Korea ? You better be quick though ! Those places are increasingly rare as people who believe in freedom of speech are rising up and changing things.

    I don’t know what is wrong with people who demand a voice and challenge authority. Do you ?

    Vote: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 2 You need to be logged in to vote
  166. Dennis Horne (2,403 comments) says:

    So, GoldenKiwi wants me to blog
    ‘Bout Big Ears the singing bod
    But I’m busy with Moron
    Can’t keep his hair on
    So his brain just clogs in the fog.

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 3 You need to be logged in to vote
  167. gump (1,647 comments) says:

    @Kea

    “LOL :) Keep em coming !!!

    Using that logic, all legislation is made by the Governor General when he gives the Royal Assent. Not by Parliament and our elected leaders. Nope. It is all done by Jerry Mateparae. :) :) :)

    You fucking retard.”

    ————————–

    Your aggressive ignorance is tiresome. You clearly know nothing about the New Zealand legal system, or very much else for that matter.

    The Governor General is given a list of recommendations for Judicial appointments by the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court, and the Solicitor General. Neither of whom are part of the Government.

    In the case of District Court appointments, the Governor General is given a list of recommendations by the Chief District Court Judge and the Secretary of Justice. Again – neither of whom are part of the Government.

    Vote: Thumb up 6 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  168. gump (1,647 comments) says:

    @Kea

    As a method of demonstrating the depths of your idiocy, I would invite you to check the New Zealand Gazette (gazette.govt.nz) for the dates if the Judicial appointments for Judge Charles Blackie and Judge Phil Gittos (the Judges involved in the defamation case currently defended by Slater).

    Judge Charles Blackie. Appointed to the District Court: 18.12.98

    Judge Phil Gittos: Appointed to the District Court: 31.03.94

    Do you notice anything about those dates? Here’s a hint – the Fourth National Government was in power from 1990 to 1999.

    If we accept your ludicrous claim that Judicial Appointments are made by politicians – how can this be reconciled with the fact that both Judges were appointed under a National Government? Does your alleged conspiracy by the Government to destroy Slater extend to the top levels of the National Party?

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  169. gump (1,647 comments) says:

    @Kea

    “Yes they do that all the time in North Korea. “Inciting violence” against a murdering oppressive regime, can and should be censored… in the “Public Interest”.

    The exact same reason given by the KGB, Stasi and every other bunch of torturing murdering government sadists… and you.”

    ——————————-

    Should Abu Hamza al Masri have been arrested for advocating for violent jihad against the UK?

    Yes or no?

    Vote: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  170. Kea (12,805 comments) says:

    If we accept your ludicrous claim that Judicial Appointments are made by politicians

    Gimp, I was not referring to selecting judges. That is a red herring you threw in their to distract from my real point.

    My point it that governments give authority to the courts. The government Legislature is the supreme law making body in NZ, not the judges. The judges have to apply and interpret the law of the government. They are subordinate, but independent.

    If the government wanted to they could eliminate defamation as a course of action tomorrow.

    Never heard of Abu Hamz al Masri. But no.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 4 You need to be logged in to vote
  171. gump (1,647 comments) says:

    @Kea

    “Gimp, I was not referring to selecting judges. That is a red herring you threw in their to distract from my real point.”

    ——————-

    Now that you’re been shown to be wrong, you are back pedaling. Here is what you said:

    @Kea, 10.11pm – “The Courts are appointed by government authority. Judges are paid for by government, along with supporting staff and the buildings Courts are held in. The separation of powers is in the operation of the Judiciary, not in their appointment.

    The Judiciary is separated from the rest of Government in its operation and its appointment. Which is why your assertion that the government is acting against Cameron Slater is nonsensical.

    Vote: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  172. gump (1,647 comments) says:

    @Kea

    “Never heard of Abu Hamz al Masri. But no.”

    ———————

    Abu Hamza al-Masri was the infamous radicalised imam of Finsbury Park Mosque in the UK. At his sentencing in 2007, the Judge noted that he had “helped to create an atmosphere in which to kill has become regarded by some as not only a legitimate course but a moral and religious duty in pursuit of perceived justice.”

    You can read more about al-Masri

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abu_Hamza_al-Masri

    If we accept your assertion that speech should have no limits, then we must also accept that al-Masri did not commit a crime by advocating for violent jihad.

    I ask you again – should Abu Hamza al Masri have been arrested for advocating for violent jihad against the UK?

    Vote: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  173. stephieboy (3,015 comments) says:

    Rowan (1,237 comments) says:
    December 2nd, 2013 at 11:23 pm

    Rowan and Judith etc I still believe your perceptions and opinions on Slater are largely shaped by his views on Bain.If it were to the contrary both of you and others would be marching to an entirely different beat of the drum both here and elsewhere .

    Vote: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 2 You need to be logged in to vote
  174. UglyTruth (4,551 comments) says:

    What remedies are available to an individual, who has had their reputation impugned by defamatory comments made by a High Court judge in an open court, and where that individual (who is not a party to the proceedings) is unable to defend themselves? Worse, the Judge’s extraordinay comments were based on perjured evidence.

    You could document the perjury and go public via alternative media.
    Defamation of people by Crown employees much more common than you might think.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 3 You need to be logged in to vote
  175. F E Smith (3,305 comments) says:

    a charge of criminal libel.

    Fortunately something that no longer exists in NZ, Rowan. An offensive law, one that remained on our statute books for far too long.

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  176. Random Punter (72 comments) says:

    I think you may be replying to me rather than Rowan, FES. But either way, thanks for the clarification.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  177. F E Smith (3,305 comments) says:

    Oops, that is correct, RP. My mistake.

    And you are most welcome.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  178. wikiriwhis business (3,996 comments) says:

    ‘a charge of criminal libel.’

    Purely based to protect pollies

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  179. Kea (12,805 comments) says:

    I ask you again – should Abu Hamza al Masri have been arrested for advocating for violent jihad against the UK?

    Gimp, and again I say: NO

    They are nothing but harmless words. The actions of Jihadists are the problem, not the language. Sticks and stones …

    I am finding it amusing that you consider the courts are totally independant of the government and law making bodies. You seem to think they exist outside of the state system. I wonder who you think gives them authority ? Or should I ask UglyTruth ? :)

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 3 You need to be logged in to vote
  180. Kea (12,805 comments) says:

    I ask you again – should Chruchill have been arrested for advocating for violent war against Nazi Germany ?

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 2 You need to be logged in to vote
  181. gump (1,647 comments) says:

    @Kea

    “They are nothing but harmless words. The actions of Jihadists are the problem, not the language. Sticks and stones …

    ————————

    Bullshit. The radicalised preaching al Masri led directly to terroristic attacks on British society. This is fact

    I draw your attention back to the words of the sentencing judge since you seem unwilling or unable to understand them:

    “[Abu Hamza al Masri] helped to create an atmosphere in which to kill has become regarded by some as not only a legitimate course but a moral and religious duty in pursuit of perceived justice.”

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  182. gump (1,647 comments) says:

    @Kea

    “I ask you again – should Chruchill have been arrested for advocating for violent war against Nazi Germany ?”

    ———————-

    Only on Kiwiblog would somebody attempt to draw a moral equivalence between Winston Churchill and the jailed radical Islamic preacher Abu Hamza al Masri.

    I won’t even entertain your attempt at a comparison. It is offensive.

    Vote: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  183. stephieboy (3,015 comments) says:

    I agree . The comparison between Churchill and a mad Islamic preacher is not only offensive but a perversion of the true historical record and also an appalling sense of moral sense and feeling feeling.

    Vote: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  184. goldnkiwi (1,303 comments) says:

    For journalistic definition does/should/would Cameron Slater having been the editor of Truth qualify him as a journalist in the more conventional sense, if the blogosphere in itself is the issue?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  185. F E Smith (3,305 comments) says:

    a perversion of the true historical record and also an appalling sense of moral sense and feeling

    Which describes the troll Kea’s methods exactly.

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  186. RandySavage (222 comments) says:

    no
    blogs are diaries for the inept

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  187. Kea (12,805 comments) says:

    “I agree . The comparison between Churchill and a mad Islamic preacher is not only offensive but a perversion of the true historical record and also an appalling sense of moral sense and feeling feeling. ”

    FES, Gimp, stephieboy, The issue is freedom of speech in the context of inciting violence. Not your feelings or your moral judgments

    Why do you arrogant little maggots think crying about being “offended” means shit to anyone ? It really summarises your self centered positions nicely. You want views other than your own shut down and want your feelings to be put ahead of other peoples liberty. I don’t care if you claim to be “offended”. There is no such thing as being “offended”. There is only a demand to to restrict freedom of speech.

    You self absorbed little nobodies are among my least favourite class of people. Ironically you are the exactly the sort of people Hitler found very useful. Without people like F E Smith and his crew, people like Hitler would never have done more than make a dick of himself. Of course FES has form for this sort of thing by denying the Holocaust in Croatia. A view not shared by: People who were there, the people who did it and admitted it, Survivors, Official records, historians, Holocaust investigators, Academics, Physical evidence and so on.

    You are a sack of shit FES and that is being generous little man.

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  188. Kea (12,805 comments) says:

    The principle announced by the (perpetually offended) Gimp, was that the government should act against those who incite violence.

    However it seems that this principle was instantly abandoned when it restricted Gimps preferred group. So really there is no principle at all.

    If we asked a group of Muslim extremists if it was right we would get one answer and if we asked a group of Christian extremists we would get another.

    So who decides what can be said ?: Offended people ? The terminally one eyed and self absorbed ?

    My answer is simple. We allow freedom of speech. If someone does actual harm then they can be dealt with.

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  189. Kea (12,805 comments) says:

    The radicalised preaching al Masri led directly to terroristic attacks on British society. This is fact

    Gimp, fact my arse. Are you saying if you heard that preaching you would attack British society ?

    1. Yes I am really that mentally feeble and lacking in decency.

    2. No I am mentally feeble and lacking in decency so I pretend to hold views I think are held by people I want to like me so I can feel like I fit in.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote