Regulate What?
40 Responses
First ←Older Page 1 2 Newer→ Last
-
The current laws seem to work pretty well.
Some bugger crossed the line, and was prosecuted.
The PM broke the name suppression law himself to find out the name of an accused performer and hasn't been prosecuted for it, maybe there is a Rotary clause? -
The PM broke the name suppression law himself to find out the name of an accused performer and hasn't been prosecuted for it, maybe there is a Rotary clause?
I believe it's not illegal to gossip about the names behind suppression laws. It's publication that will have you pulled up beside whaleoil in court.
-
P.S. So far as Mr Slater is concerned I am increasingly concerned that some elements within the "Mainstream Media", MSM or perhaps "Old School Media" would like to equate his activties with online media as a whole.
It's worse than that, Alastair. A tedious new way for columnists from Auckland to London and back again to vamp out 800 words on deadline is a screed on what a foetid sewer the internet is. It's full of dirty-minded ideologues who couldn't tell the truth if their lives were at stake. What a tragic decline from the days when every newsroom was full of disinterested, tasteful seekers after truth!
Of course, these screeds most often appear in newspapers like The New York Times, Daily Mirror and New Zealand Herald whose own history of "truthiness" is nothing to boast about.
I'll quite happily put my standards up against Jayson Blair and Piers Morgan any day of the week.
-
The current laws seem to work pretty well.
Idiot/Savant agrees.
...the claim that we are not subject to any form of regulation is simply false. As a blogger, I'm subject to exactly the same laws as Power is in issuing his press releases. If I defame someone, I can be sued. If I publish objectionable material, I can be prosecuted. If I breach a court suppression order, I can be fined. Rather than showing that the blosophere is a "wild west", the recent Whale Oil case showed that the law is perfectly capable of dealing with it.
The problem for the justice system isn't the blogosphere, but the net's combination of strong anonyminity and a free market in legal jurisdictions. The same technology that allows human rights activists to hide from the Iranian regime and circumvent the Great Firewall of China also allows people to read or post or host information which undermines our justice system.
-
@Russell,
On Robyn - the interesting thing there is that it was her magazine - she founded it and left unwillingly. The PC's strength historically has been through the fact that the publishing barons have always taken it seriously. In turn the PC's deliberative functions have always been conducted in a pretty respectable fashion. So yes it has no power - but it is an organisation in pretty good standing and respected by publishers. It will be interesting to discover whether the publishers APN and Fairfax will be keen to have their own online offerings included in PC jurisdiction - or indeed whether (perhaps informally) they are already covered.
@Bernard,
Re: risks of joining the PC.
Do we risk allowing the mainstream media to reverse-engineer standards/activities online?
I doubt it and if they tried to do so we could always leave. I think in the first instance they will be focussed around coming to policy which the major MSM online publishers can live with. The way the PC process works the complainant complains - the editor responds and the PC deliberates and then gives the editor and the complainant a right of reply before it issues a judgement. I think they may take a bit of time to educate but my experience is that they want to make sensible decisions.
Do we risk being dependent on the old guys to be part of the 'club'?
Possibly - it is initeresting that NBR is covered but doesn't pay - thats quite a good precedent.
Or is this just the price we all have to pay for the excesses of Cameron and co?
Our interest in being covered is probably around the following headings:
- to be accepted as part of the "real" media (by the "real" media)
- to be seen to be acting responsiblyI appreciate not everybody will want either of these things - in which case they probably shouldn't consent. And even for our own part we are still deliberating on whether we want to be involved - the biggest negative I suspect is that it can at times be a bit time consuming responding to complaints.
As Russell said before enabling people on the internet to complain about stuff can be like a red rag to a bull - partly because it is altogether too easy to do so, also internet trolls seem to be far too common and less easily pacified than ones compelled to write actual letters.
@Graeme,
Thanks for those details. I think the rationale behind the protection from defamation arises because in ordinary circumstances any wise media will immediately stay stummm when threatened with legal action - or at least be very careful about what they say. In the case of a Press Council complaint typically what happens is that there is a fairly high level of disclosure of information as to what happened to give rise to the event which is being complained about. Neither a publisher nor their insurers would be happy about that taking place in the event that there was a defamation action in the offing still.
@Craig
Quite so :)
al
-
Quite so :)
I guess the shorter version is this: I'll be damned before I swallow a lecture on journalistic standards from the author of 'Asian Angst' in a newspaper I wouldn't use as dunny wipe. (I have more respect for my arsehole than the Herald on Scum-day has for its readers.)
-
Most blogger codes of ethics sound like they're written by people wanting to be journalists, and many of the more interesting and valuable blogs are good precisely because they go beyond journalism's ideas of how to do public knowledge.
I'm getting painful flashbacks of those alternative blog awards earlier in the year and the bloggers' union or whatever it was called (motto: "Must be braying").
-
Power seems like a man in a hurry. Never a good thing in a politician in my book.
A good time to say I noted this previously.
-
I believe it's not illegal to gossip about the names behind suppression laws. It's publication that will have you pulled up beside whaleoil in court.
The problem is that we are not just talking about the "Top 10 political blogs" (like this one) which have daily posts by political/media insiders but every other sort of blog (ie the once a month food blog) and forums such as facebook.
So while (for instance) Kiwiblog and stuff.co.nz have contact addresses and semi-fulltime editors that can update stories as required what happens when Auntie May uses to discuss the latest court case with Auntie June?
Suddenly the name is published for all the world to see and Auntie May might not even be aware that since she read about it in the Herald the name got suppressed.
As Robyn said earlier this affects a lot more people that the Big Blogs and I don't think the press council is going to sign up every facebook and twitter user as a member.
-
RB to reception? RB?
-
Security required in aisle 3!!!
-
Bush lawyers caught flat footed...
Security required in aisle 3!!!
it's always the pedoff aisle
where the peduncles lurk...I fear Russell is sleeping in...
I think I'll head out to the garden
to lop some laterals and cut back
the creepers and stalkers... -
Now Geoff and I look like we made silly random comments. Ah well.
-
@Kyle; oh, well. I do that all the time but stray readers of this thread must be rather confused. Enough to say that we trying to draw attention to a rather inappropriate posting!
-
You do notice the Report link at the beginning of each post? Not that it's as satisfyingly witty..
Post your response…
This topic is closed.