Kiwiblog

The Dom Post editorial today is on blogs and name suppression. Extracts:

As the internet has transformed the world, the blogosphere within has become pervasive. Anyone with a computer can either read the opinions of people who craft blogs – sometimes, merely illiterate streams of consciousness – or pen one themselves.

That some who cannot spell, let alone write, think that the world is gagging to know their business is as presumptuous as tweeters who think everyone is interested in their self-absorbed lives. Be that as it may.

Some blogs demand attention, in this country those by, for example, David Farrar, Russell Brown and Cameron Slater.

I’m not sure if that means we are excluded from the description of merely being illiterate streams of consciousness!

Attention Slater has now got.

Last month, police charged him with breaching name suppression orders when, on his WhaleOil blog, he posted pictorial clues identifying the accused in two high-profile sexual offence cases. This week, he revealed by way of binary code the identity of a former national figure accused of a sexual attack on a 13-year-old girl.

Nelson police, who laid the latest charges, call Slater’s actions irresponsible, because they fear they might lead to public identification of the victim, whom the suppression order was intended to protect.

Slater is on a mission. He has said, outside the courtroom, that he believes everyone should be equal before the law, that celebrities and the wealthy have their identities suppressed more often and more easily than do ordinary Kiwis, and that the law needs changing.

The Dominion Post agrees. But there are better ways to lobby for a more open court system than by putting at risk the future of a teenage girl.

I agree, but point out a newspaper had already effectively done the same thing.

At the same time, Slater has forced police, perhaps the solicitor-general, possibly Justice Minister Simon Power, Courts Minister Georgina te Heu Heu, and Attorney-General Chris Finlayson, and maybe, later, the judiciary, to confront the fact that the Criminal Justice Act, which gives judges the power to suppress certain information relating to cases before them, needs revision.

Which I believe is likely, on the basis of the Law Commission report and the comments at the time from Simon Power.

In the meantime, it is reassuring to see the Crown Law Office has decided that it can no longer apply the law relating to suppression unequally. At times of egregious breach, the solicitor-general has been keen to go after those in the mainstream media who have broken suppression orders or otherwise committed contempt of court.

For the most part, however, inhabitants of the blogosphere have been merely warned about their cavalier disregard of suppressed information or other transgressions, notably during Clayton Weatherston’s trial for murder.

Either everyone who breaches this law is prosecuted, or no-one is. And were the latter to become the reality, those sections of the Criminal Justice Act pertaining to suppression orders need to be repealed.

I find it quite funny that yesterday we had bloggers such as myself saying that the media are getting away with transgressions, while today the media are saying the bloggers are getting away!

An excellent summary of the whole issue has been done by Steven Price. I won’t do extracts because people should read the whole thing.

Law Professor Andrew Geddis has done a second post on the issue.

Also a number of posts from media lecturer Martin Hirst at Ethical Martini.

The Press reports:

A blogger faces fresh charges after he revealed the name of a national figure charged with indecently assaulting a 13-year-old girl.

Cameron Slater already faces charges over alleged breaches of name suppression, and he said yesterday that he had no doubt his latest effort would land him in more trouble.

Slater, who writes the WhaleOil blog, yesterday posted a blog entry that stated the name of a man charged with indecent assault. The name had to be deciphered by translating a code the blog was written in.

I think it was hexadecimal converted into binary. Now Cameron will find out in due course, whether or not that is seen to identify the ex-MP with name supression, but if they do prosecute the Whale, the question has to be asked whether newspapers should be charged also?

The man’s name was suppressed when he appeared in the Nelson District Court on Thursday.

A Sunday newspaper published details about the man, which Slater said had narrowed the field of possible accused to three.

He wanted to clarify who the accused was so the other two men were not unfairly accused.

Now I am not gunning for the Herald on Sunday. But I would say that far more people worked out from their story, who the accussed is, than the handful of people who were capable of working out the code Cameron had used, and reverse engineering it into hexadecimal and finally the  alphabet.

I am not saying that one justifies the other, or two wrongs make a right. I am saying that the Police should be very careful not to be selective. The Herald on Sunday article told us the following:

• An ex-MP in Nelson – narrows it down to around four people
• A “national figure” – probably eliminates around two of the four people as now very low profile
• He has a partner
• Has a firearms licence (implied)
• Implies the victim is the partner’s daughter
• Implies the ex-MP has been in more than one party by referring to the leader of “a” party he represented in Parliament

I would say that identifies the accused far more easily to many more people than the hexadecimal and binary code did.

You can argue that Whale’s post left no doubt, once you cracked his codes, while the newspaper story only allows you to make an intelligent guess. However the law in s139(2) says:

No person shall publish … the name of the person accused or convicted of the offence or any name or particulars likely to lead to the person’s identification.

Were the particulars in the newspaper story enough to be likely to lead to identification of the accused? They certainly were for me, and most political observers.

Now again, I am not advocating that the newspaper be charged. I would prefer no one be charged. But I would be interested in how one could conclude that the blog post is a breach, but the newspaper story is not.

The Herald/NZPA reports:

An internet blogger says his arrest on charges of breaching court suppression orders has seen a huge increase on hits on his site.

Cameron Slater reappeared in Auckland District Court today facing five charges relating to allegations he published information which could lead to the identification of two people with name suppression.

They related to his posting of pictorial clues identifying the individuals in two sex offence cases. One involved an Olympic Games competitor and another a well-known entertainer.

Slater said he would defend the charges.

The public wanted an ending to most name suppressions, he said.

“I’d say about one per cent of cases deserve name suppression, and that’s those involving sex crimes against minors, so that the victims are not identified,” he said.

Slater said the charges had made his blog popular at a time when internet traffic normally slowed.

“Until police charged me my traffic would have been lower than a provincial newspaper on a Sunday,” he said outside court.

“But on Christmas Day, which is normally the quietest day of the year, I had about 20,000 hits, which was about five times the traffic of (fellow blogger) David Farrar.”

Slater said his legal team had about 16 potential defences to the charge.

He said one was potentially that his blog was hosted in the United States, not New Zealand.

In the past newspapers published overseas have been able to publish the names of people who had name suppression granted in New Zealand.

Slater will reappear in Auckland District Court in two weeks.

The actual hearing will be fascinating. I presume it is on 19 Jan?

The SST reports:

A CONTROVERSIAL blogger is struggling to convince his insurance company he is clinically depressed in order for the policy he depends on for his livelihood to be reinstated.

Cameron Slater, who writes a right-wing blog under the name Whale Oil, has received about $100,000 a year under an income protection insurance policy, due to depression he claims has left him unable to work since the collapse of a business five years ago.

Despite his condition, Slater has spent the last four years developing his blog, pouring his energies into the project fulltime. But two months ago his insurance company, Fidelity Life Assurance, cut off his benefits, saying their specialists had determined he was no longer unfit to work. …

His recent engagement covering the Tua-Cameron boxing bout on Twitter had left him shattered the next day.

“I can put on a good face but the next day I’m a wreck.” …

He said that for confirmation of his mental health status, his insurance company needed to only look as far as a Facebook group which had 82 members, including a number of MPs, called “People who think Cam Slater is nuts”.

“Even my enemies say so,” he said.

Maybe Fidelity could hire Cameron, if they don’t think he is nuts

North Shore Mayor Andrew Williams has objected to Whale Oil referring to him as “mental” and demanded he stop doing so, or he will tell Cameron’s father on him.

The Mayor should know that if you want to get Cameron to stop, you don’t threaten him with his father – you threaten to tell his mother!!!

The Electoral Commision has released four more decisons – all quite interesting.

1. Display of anti-national banners by Clinton Smith was complained about by Cameron Slater. The Commission found that the banner and associated leaflets were election advertisements under the EFA. Smith claimed to have made a verbal promoter statement of authorisation. The Commission rejected this as being adequate and said tangible items can not have merely verbal authorisation statements. Therefore they found the items contravened s63(2) of the Electoral Finance Act. However they will not ask the Police to investigate Smith for an illegal practice as they found his breach was not wilful as he thought what he had done was necessary. And if does not constitute an illegal practice unless done wilfully.
2. A Pete Hodgson fundraising letter for Labour. This was found to be an election advertisement in breach of s63(2) of not having an authorisation statement and 65(1) of not having been formally approved by the Labour Party. However once again they found the breach was not wilful and again no referral to the Police as it is not an illegal practice unless done willfuly.
3. National MP Eric Roy’s advertisments in the Southland Express were complained about by Labour MP Lesley Soper. The EC made said “The Electoral Commission believes it is essential to democratic elections that parties can inform the public of the policies which will be implemented if elected and that, particularly in light of New Zealand Bill of Rights Act considerations, it would not be reasonable to regard mere statements of policy as election advertisements and subject to the restraints of the Electoral Finance Act.” They also said “Therefore the Commission is of the view that items which are accounts or reasoned criticisms of policy, or accounts or reasoned criticisms of actions or inactions, generally are not “reasonably” regarded as election advertisements as they are essential to informed democratic elections.“So what can’t you say? “The Electoral Commission considers that accompanying identification of the proponents of such items does not of itself convert the items into election advertisements, but disproportionate display of photographs, names or logos could do so. Other matters that might bring such items within the definition of an election advertisement include the addition of persuasive content which lack an information base such as party slogans, self promotion or unreasoned criticism of opponents, and exhortations to vote in a particular manner.” They cocnluded that Eric Roy’s advertisements were not election advertisements under the EFA.
4. National MP Chris Auchinvole’s website was complained about by Oliver Woods. With similiar reasoning to above, the Electoral Commission found the website was not an election advertisement. So National continues to be one of the few parties to have never broken the new law.

In both the first two cases, illegal advertisements were published and the law was broken. But the finding of a lack of intent means no liability for the two individuals concerned.

Also of interest to some may be the news that as Kotahitanga Te Manamotu Hake Tiriti o Waitangi, the New Zealand Liberals, and the South Island Party all failed to register for the election, their $30,000 of broadcasting allocations was redistributed to all the smaller parties

Peter and Mike we did inside the blogmobile, with two cameras. Sadly this means you get to see a bit of me, as well as the candidates. Big kudos to Cameron for providing the gear and getting them trimmed and put onto You Tube.

A reminder the questions were:

1. What is the biggest issue for the voters of your electorate?
2. When did you first stand for election of any sort – was it at school?
3. McCain/Palin or Obama/Biden?
4. What will you do with the tax cuts you just got?
5. Goff or Cunliffe?

Peter McCaffrey was our first interview. He cited the economy as the biggest issue. For the question about whether he ever stood for election at school, I checked that Peter had in fact left school

Peter went for McCain/Palin. He was doubtful about McCain until Palin came along, but agrees with her on economic issues. Peter is not working at the moment so sadly gets no tax cuts. And in the final question he goes for Goff.

Mike Collins was next up. He agrees that the economy is the biggest issue – even more than law and order. On the US bailout he says it is good in the short term but in the long term may lead to more risky behaviour if people think the Government will bail them out.

Mike stood for VUWSA President a few years ago, and says he was lucky to be the only person on his ticket not to get elected. He also plugs for McCain on the basis of his free trade policies and support for NZ getting a real free trade deal.

His tax cuts are good for a dozen beer he reckons and like Peter opts for Goff.

Third up is David Scott, NZ First candidate for Otaki. He says the biggest issue for Otaki voters is to keep Winston and NZ First in Parliament and not leave it to the two big parties.

On the US front he has problems with both candidates for supporting the bailout but finally says “Not McCain”. David’s tax cuts are less than a $1 so he said no big change to his lifestyle. And on Cunliffe vs Goff, he says stay with Helen.

The final interview from the trip is Josie Pagani from Jim Anderton’s Progressives. Josie explains she was happy to have Pagani as her surname as her maiden name of Harbutt saw her called “Hard Butt” all through school

Josie picks transport as the biggest issue for Otaki voters, and also health. She says she has been unable to get a GP since returning from overseas. Josie also relates how she campaigned at university for a student exec position and finished with “Vote for me, I am more left wing than him” and it worked as she got elected. I suggested it could become the Progressive’s campaign slogan.

Josie surprised no one by going for Obama/Biden. Respects Sarah Palin as a working mum, but she does not have the experience to be VP. Her plans for her tax cuts involve a new pair of shoes, and she said not to tell her husband John. Whoops.

Big thanks to all the candidates for taking part. As you can see we’re not exactly doing hard news, but we do think it is nice to allow voters to see a bit more of their candidates, and give them some opportunities to talk issues. Most of it, we’re enjoying doing it. When you are not getting paid to do something, you only do it if it is fun.

Anthony Hubbard in the SST has written an interesting and well balanced article on dirty politics in cyberspace. Has quotes from Cameron Slater, Rochelle Rees, Lynn Pretnice and Rob Salmond.

AUSA has retracted its $5,000 reward for anyone who makes a citizen’s arrest of Condoleezza Rice. I suspect someone pointed out to them their liability if a student trying to “win” the $5,000 got seriously injured doing so.

The AUSA President, David Do, who offered the reward is an active Labour Party member and a former Princes Street Branch Chair. Maybe a journalist can ask Helen her view of her party members trying to get the US Secretary of State arrested? [UPDATE: David Do tells me he resigned his Labour Party membership last year]

I’ve been told that the even bigger dicks in VUWSA has gone and offered a $10,000 reward – if true this would be from compulsory student fees.

The Canterbury student politicians seem more sensible, quoting the UCSA Blog:

As a student association, is this really their core business? Does arresting Condi help students in any way?

It’s crazy shit like this, which casts doubt on the credibility of Student representatives/politicians, and really hampers the effectiveness of our core responsibility, which is to represent students at our respective Universities.

Meanwhile Whale Oil offers his own $5,000 reward for a citizen’s arrest:

Popular and competent blogger Whaleoil has followed the lead of the Auckland University Students Association in offering a $5000 reward for the arrest of a well known criminal who has recently entered New Zealand: Winston Peters.

Cameron notes:

“And just before Peter Low gets on the phone, the competition is not open to triad gangs,” adds Slater.

Heh. For the avoidance of doubt I will point out the post is satire, not a literal accusation of criminal behaviour!

Scrubone comments on a new blog called The Hairy Armpit which is meant to be rather offensive. It is being talked about a bit because Russell Brown was happy to link to it but not happy to link to Whale Oil.

Personally I don’t care who links to who, but I did love Scrubone’s description of The Hairy Armpit:

The irony was that it was a post from Russel at Hard News where he refused to link to Whaleoil. Frankly, if you turned Cam into a women, feminist, cut of a leg or something to make him really mad then removed his remaining inhibitions and decency via a combination of “P” (Ice for you foreign looking types ) and acid then you’d get the Hairy Armpit.

I now have a visual image of Cameron as a one legged woman high on P and acid!

An NZPA story in the NZ Herald has quotes from Russell Brown and Cameron Slater (aka media whore padawan) on the Parliamentary edits to Wikipedia.

As I said yesterday, it is desirable for edits to be done under a user name rather than an IP address if there are issues of potential conflicts of interest involved. I make very very few edits (and none have ever been reversed I think) but always under my name.