Posts by Rich Lock
Last ←Newer Page 1 2 3 4 5 Older→ First
-
It's a reference to 'I wish there was an edit button to undo my lame brain-dead typos'
-
Given that the Herald drops thousands of its papers in letterboxes every morning, the copies remaining in libraries are probably the lesser cock-up.
Yes, that's a given. But all of those are now in private hands, which isn't a concern.
What I was getting at is that APN's cock-up has the potential to drag in a whole bunch of public archival-type institutions (e.g. libraries), who haven't actually done anything wrong, but who might get hit by the fall-out from APN's cock-up.
Like I said upthread: Good job, APN.
-
I've mentioned it on here before, but if anyone is interested in a first-hand account of serving on a jury, and the workings of a court through a criminal case, then I recommend 'the juryman's tale'.
I bottowed a copy from a local library here.
The conclusion that the author reached is that most people (contrary to what YV'ers seem to think) will take their duty extremely seriously, and do their utmost to reach a 'correct' legal conclusion.
-
I wonder if we really want public libraries -- which are having a tough enough time acting as our public memory banks -- should start pre-emptively vandalising newspapers for fear of litigation?
Well, yeah, that's kinda my point. Short answer: no, of course we don't. But what I was trying to establish last night was whether there was an issue or not, and it would appear that there potentially is.
By printing what they shouldn't have, The Herald has inadvertently created a pretty tangled situation for a lot of other unrelated public institutions (libraries were the first example that sprang to mind), which could cause massive headaches all round. Or alternatively, be quietly dropped, which more or less makes the suppression order a dead letter.
Nice work, APN.
-
Right, thankyou. That answers my question.
I wonder if public libraries (or similar) are thinking these issues through to this extent?
It would appear that The Herald has completely screwed the pooch on this one.
-
Damn straight they are one thing - they're perfectly legal. The offence of breach of suppression/breach of an order prohibiting publication occurs in the publishing of the material - in the media, or on the Internet. Having a copy doesn't amount to a breach; lending your copy to someone else isn't a breach, telling your mates or sending an email to your Mum isn't a breach, etc.
Right, so now the information is free (free! free, I tells ya!), a public library, for example, wouldn't be in breach of the order by sticking a notice in the window saying: 'come and look at the front page of The Herald for Sat June 6th 2009'. They didn't publish it, so they're alright?
-
I'll go one further: does Russell need to come to my house and personally delete the cache on my computer?
Now, it was a semi-serious question, but it may have come out as incoherent gibberish after a 12-hr day trying to work out how many patent claims can dance on the head of a pin whilst listening to pounding drum and bass (me, not the claims). So my head is a bit mangled.
Privately held hardcopies are one thing, but publicly available ones are another. I'm assuming it is now the responsibility of e.g. the library to make sure they don't breach the suppression order - that is, the terms of the supression order apply to them in relation to the story printed in the Herald, so they must remove that particular story from their hardcopy before letting MoPs have a copy.
-
A thought has just occurred.
Now, I'm assuming that the front page story on Saturday was the one that was the subject of a suppression order (that's what I've been told).
So that hard copy of the paper will be more or less freely available to anyone who cares to drop into somewhere that they store things like newspapers. Such as, for example, Auckland City Library.
So whose responsibility is it (if anyone's) to get rid of all those offending copies which are still freely available? APN's?
Do the libraries get in trouble if they provide these copies to people?
Will Russell get in trouble if people read this post and hunt down a hardcopy? (feel free to delete if necessary).
-
It appears that the Herald has now removed its own story, having become aware that the Court of Appeal placed a permanent suppression order on the evidence.
Epic Herald Fail.
So tempting to go and dig the hardcopy of the Saturday edition out of the recycle bin. But I mustn't! Suppressed! No! Bad!
-
Who was Lundy and who did he kill, anyway?
http://www.crime.co.nz/c-files.aspx?ID=10286
As I understand it, the question about whether this a wrongful conviction or not revolves around whether it would have been physically possible for him to get between A and B to actually commit the crime.