+1 for Bitcoin
You know, this could be a fascinating precedent. So, how many times does a journalist or media outlet have to (say) end up issuing a partial or full retraction of a story before they don't count any more? How about a newspaper that ends up sacking a reporter for printing stories that were entirely fabricated -- that's about as abusive, unprofessional and prick-like as a journalist can get in my book.
Yeah. What he said.
gesturing towards a reasonably good principle that if you’re an abusive unprofessional dickhead, you can’t shelter yourself and your sources behind a profession you aren’t part of.
One mans abusive unprofessional dickhead is another man's....?
Nope. Got nothing.
I think that the subjectivity element of the argument is troubling... plus the fact that we're discussing old oily really gums up the old thinking gears.
@Rich & @Paul
Yes I can see the difference.
I was rather clumsily trying to respond to the idea that he shouldn't (morally) be allowed to argue whatever point suits him in the courts - it's the nature of an adverserial system that he's pretty much obliged to - with about the same amount of tongue in my cheek that I suspect Russell had (ETA: who is free to correct me on that score).
ETA: my position, to be clear, was that it's not *necessarily* hypocritical to make both arguments, and that even if it were, he gets a pass because you get to defend yourself on technicalities exactly like you'd be convicted on them.
ETA2: And also, I genuinely wanted to know what his argument was previously, so, thanks.
A lawyer has pointed out to me that Slater had previously tried to get a decision that bloggers were not publishers for the purposes of disseminating suppressed names -- and now he's trying for the reverse!
Was his previous argument successful?
And if he lost that argument, shouldn't he win this one?
(OUCH. That hurt my brain to type... too close to almost sticking up for him)
And, what's a Police warning worth, then?
Seems to me that telling them that what they're doing is illegal, but not following it up with enforcement, or "and while we can't prosecute you yet, here's what we're going to do to stop you" would just be emboldening.
Is basically saying "Yeah, we know, but we can't catch you" likely to have the desired effect? Ever?
Shane Jones' dog-whistling is odious, and a style of politics I would prefer confined to see eliminated, but the right can have it if they want it.
ETA: which is a remarkably good indicator of where Jones sits on the spectrum within Labour I would posit.
EDIT: Oops, not quick enough. Russell already quoted Jacinda's tweet.
Removed as redundant.