Wednesday, 15 September 2010

Blogger Cameron Slater harpooned [updated]

As Oscar Wilde once said, the only thing worse than being talked about is not being talked about.

Blogger Cameron Slater likes being talked about.  No question. So, for him, yesterday was a victory—tempered only by a slap on the wrist with a wet bus ticket—which is how he characterised his punishment at his Whale Oil blog.

But it was not a victory for free speech.

It was not a victory for free speech because, unlike the rest of the western world, New Zealanders are still considered too immature to be allowed to know the names of sex offenders, frauds, and other assorted criminals before our courts—and Justice Harvey has now confirmed that even hinting in public about the names of those people can see you bailed up in court and given a large fine and a stern talking to.

In New Zealand, very often, justice may not be seen to be done, nor to whom it is done. And that remains the case. The courts themselves have seen to that.

But it was not a victory for free speech because Cameron dropped the ball.

Breaking a bad law on principle and taking your lumps for it is a time-honoured form of civil disobedience. Just ask the suffragettes. Or Rosa Parkes. But you’ve got to carry the ball to the line, making your case in court on principle.

Cameron didn’t do that.  He wriggled.  His lawyers wriggled.  They talked about his depression. About how suppression orders don’t apply to blogs. About how he didn’t choose this as a crusade, instead someone chose to crusade against him.

So the ball got dropped. Instead of the ringing arguments we should have heard about the right of New Zealanders to see what justice is being done in their name, we heard instead (at least, we heard in the media) arguments that binary code is not speech, that Cameron Slater is not the real proprietor of his blog, and about the meaning of the world “publish.”

That was disappointing.

Just as it was to read Justice Harvey bewailing the lack of official “oversight” of the blogosphere in his 70-page judgement.

_Quote Unlike newspapers which are subject [sic] the oversight of the Press Council or advertisers who are subject to the Advertising Standards Authority or radio and television which is subject to the Broadcasting Standards Authority, there are no similar regulatory organisations in place in the “blogosphere.”

Harvey says this like it’s a bad thing. I trust Simon “FIGJAM” Power and his colleagues and supporters don’t see it that way too.

I would hate the likes of Jeffrey Palmer, for example—who has never seen a committee, board or tribunal he hasn’t wanted to join—to sit in judgement upon a blogger who has decided that Palmer has a face that needed punching.  But that’s where Harvey’s comments are either intentionally or inadvertently headed.

So this was not a victory for free speech.

We bloggers have been told off.  We may not consider ourselves above the law.  We may, subject now to the constrictions laid down by Harvey J, continue to post what we like and what we think. For the moment.  But a trial balloon has been quietly floated. And to shoot that down we will need more than just harpoons.

UPDATE: See what I mean:

“The judgment [says media lecturer Martin Hirst] probably puts a little more pressure on the government to respond to the Law Commission report on regulation of the Internet…”


  1. PC, you said that Cameron dropped the ball, but why didn't you whisper to Whale not to do so (on principle), prior to his last appearance? It may well be easy for you to say in hindsight of what he should have done and at the same time, you were being quiet in not encouraging Whale to stand firm?

  2. You try telling him what to do. Good luck with that.

  3. Ethical Martini quoted the following from Judge Harvey's ruling:

    ...posts it into private letterboxes or pastes it up on a billboard for all to see.

    So, I interpret it that if I put up a billboard with a name of someone who has been suppressed in court on my own property, then that is illegal?

    Can a lawyer chip in here with an explanation to see if my interpretation is correct?

  4. Controversial blogger Cameron Slater will be on Triangle and Stratos this Thursday and Sunday to talk about the implications for New Zealand’s blogging community following his day in court.

    Cameron will join Tim Selwyn of the Tumeke blog as part of a panel on Citizen A. Outspoken Martyn “Bomber” Bradbury’s show screens on Thursdays at 7pm on Triangle and on Sundays at 8pm on Stratos.

  5. You're right PC. Cam's only shifted the issue onto how to best include the intrawebs in legislation to handle the law around name suppression. It was meant to be, as you point out, a challenge to the use of name suppression and in support 'one law for all' justice.

    Still, what do you expect from a Nats supporter and Coke drinker?

    Cam needs to carry on. Post a new name, get pinged, go to court, plead guilty as charged, take the hit and do it again.

    And yes, I heard you try explain this to him.

  6. Falafulu, I am not a lawyer, but my interpretation is that a billboard is a form of publication - think about advertising hoardings all over the city. That is publishing, it's commercial speech, not free speech, but it would be pinged. The fact that it is on private property is irrelevant. All billboards are on private property.

    Ethical Martini

  7. Simon FIGJAM Power -F**k I'm Good; Just Ask Me. ~ not everyone would know that acronym, but being a figjam I did.npen


1. Commenters are welcome and invited.
2. All comments are moderated. Off-topic grandstanding, spam, and gibberish will be ignored. Tu quoque will be moderated.
3. Read the post before you comment. Challenge facts, but don't simply ignore them.
4. Use a name. If it's important enough to say, it's important enough to put a name to.
5. Above all: Act with honour. Say what you mean, and mean what you say.