Posts by nzlemming
Last ←Newer Page 1 2 3 4 5 Older→ First
-
Hmm, Aus 171/1 after 32.3 overs. Could be a very high scoring game.
-
Hard News: How about that cricket, eh?, in reply to Peter Darlington,
And ex-Aussie batsman Mathew Hayden, as classy as usual
So now I really want India to win.
-
Hard News: How about that cricket, eh?, in reply to Steve Curtis,
So those thinking NZ could be chasing 350 for 50 overs, well they did that handsomely v West Indies
I don't think anyone would seriously compare the Windies bowlers with the South Africans, on a good day for either team. It's not that their bowlers were bad, last night - they weren't. But somebody has to win, and we did. (although why Philander for Abbott is something Russell Domingo will be defending for a long time)
-
Hard News: How about that cricket, eh?, in reply to Hilary Stace,
Martin Guptill reminded me of a sparrow during his stellar batting effort in Wellington.
I was thinking "Meerkat"
-
Hard News: How about that cricket, eh?, in reply to Danielle,
This is a fun visualisation of the #NZvSA hashtag last night. http://trendsmap.com/v/ykNe/w</q>
That's awesome!
-
Hard News: An unacceptable failure of care, in reply to Rob Stowell,
Let’s say it’s effectively a ‘conversation’ and someone raises something libellous (and incorrect – I think truth is always a defence?)
Essentially, it has to be incorrect to be libellous – truth is a defence, yes.
I’d like to think a judge would see the thread/conversation/discussion as a whole, and accept that people in discourse get things wrong, get heated, make mistakes, sometimes boast or talk shit, and that’s a part of free speech.
Free speech means that government can’t stop you speaking – it doesn’t mean you can say what you like. You can qualify your comment explicitly as opinion, but even that is not absolute. If I were to go on (for an absurd example) Slater’s blog and say “In my opinion, Russell Brown is a small-minded lefty woofter”, I’d probably be able to mount a credible defence of personal opinion. If, however, I posted “In my opinion, Russel Brown screws small animals and buries their bodies at the beach.” Russell would probably be within his rights to firstly demand that Slater take it down and secondly to bring action against me for defamation, which I could only defend by digging up the supposed bodies.
It definitely shouldn’t put the owner of the house in the dock. I hope it’s not here :) but I hope we get some case-law on this soon. It’s an issue that won’t go away, but right now nobody seems to know where the boundaries lie.
I’m sure the Edge will correct me if I’m wrong, but I think there is already case law on this (see http://www.nbr.co.nz/article/online-defamation-nz-google-case-supports-aust-not-uk-conclusions-ck-132351) which definitely points at the owner of the house.
-
Hard News: An unacceptable failure of care, in reply to Russell Brown,
I wrote that the police “should have had cause to fear [young women and girls] were being systematically sexually assaulted”. I think that’s fair.
You did, and it is. I think what Rich is referring to is the misunderstanding that Beriah Hales's father was one of the members of the Child Protection Unit involved. As I understand it, he is not. [edit] Given that it's your blog, you are the "publisher of record" and therefore liable for any libel raised (correct me if I've misunderstood you, Rich).
-
Hard News: Villainy and engagement, in reply to Russell Brown,
Two more people I've never heard of. Wasn't planning on watching, anyway ;-)
-
I don't count the Living Channel as "reality TV" ;-) Things like Grand Designs, A Place in the Country and the wonderful Mike Holmes are more like soft documentaries with feelgood tossed in. It's the competitive formats I can't stand.
-
Conspiracy theory over at the Throng. Calling Dr Ransome!