Posts by Gen
-
Dubmugga - anything that could identify the person in question. Best to steer clear.
-
Dubmugga - anything that could identify the person in question. Best to steer clear.
-
ISPs might avail themselves of an innocent dissemination defence. Given Russell engages with the discussion on here and attempts mild moderation I doubt he could do the same.
(I’m operating off defamation tests here but guessing the test re contempt might be similar).
-
"old skool rules/laws governing mainstream media dont apply online in much the same way copyright laws aren't respected. Generation 2.0 really dont give a shit eh..."
Comments like this always strike me as really, really short sighted. It doesn’t matter how much “generation 2.0 don’t give a shit”- the law is the law and all it’s going to take is a content owner coming down on you like a tonne of bricks and you’ll find those 24 songs you shared on Limewire just bankrupted your arse. (Or those funny jokes you made on Public Address landed you – or Russell – with a conviction).
I’m an IP lawyer so I guess I’m not representative of most Generation 2.0-ers. But the sooner people work to change the law to make it more relevant and applicable, instead of assuming it just doesn’t apply to them, the better.
-
I do not want to trivialise sexual abuse. I do, however, wonder whether this case would ever have got to court if there hadn’t been a “well known entertainer” involved.
I think he acted like a sleazy drunk, but usually, if you tell a sleazy drunk to fuck off, they do. They don’t need to be charged with archaic offences.
There might be circumstances that I’m not aware of that make his behaviour more sinister than its appears to be. On what’s been reported though, name suppression seems justified for what appears to me to be a grotty but not particularly criminal act.
-
Nice backpeddling btw.
In respect of this story - this whole thing is just a bit silly. The whole situation sounds odd.
I don’t really understand how he managed to force her head down that far without it being assault. Makes me wonder what details have been omitted.
-
In the context of this discussion Mark, yes.
It's really not that hard.
-
Either way, mark taslov, you just breached a name suppression order thereby committing contempt of court, or you defamed someone.
And yes I know which it was.
Idiot.
-
You have a point dub.
Just to seize on one of your points though, I don’t think anyone, esp a politician, should be outed for their sexuality by the media (unless they act hypocritically in their public life - in which case there's a public interest justification).
This is New Zealand, not Alabama.
-
Tom Cruise, Keira Knightley, Posh Spice - depending on topic.
Craig I think we're broadly in agreement. (I’ve always liked Private Eye’s pet name for Carter Ruck btw). Virtually every Friday when I worked in the UK, a fax from Schillings would roll out at 5.30pm, warning all UK publications not to print photos of this or that so called celeb (remember the furore round Britney’s nipple exposing dress/photos taken on the street/the infringement of her “privacy”? I don’t think many publications ran that pic, despite the dubious basis for any restraint).
The company I worked for had in-house legal so could make a call immediately without any discernable effect on budgets. The cost of getting external advice on these faxes would very quickly make huge holes in the viability of smaller outfits.
An interesting tangent is how this sort of bullying contributes to the oligarchisation (I think I just made up a word) of a few powerful media organisations to the detriment of smaller independent companies, but that’s a rant for another day.