Hard News by Russell Brown

Read Post

Hard News: So-called celebrity justice

246 Responses

First ←Older Page 1 2 3 4 5 10 Newer→ Last

  • Gen,

    In the context of this discussion Mark, yes.

    It's really not that hard.

    Since Nov 2009 • 12 posts Report Reply

  • mark taslov,

    Being a douchebag is illegal on Public Address.

    Yeah sorry about that, it's damn hard to get that info here.

    In the context of this discussion Mark, yes.

    Sorry I'll try to stay on topic. I just have these moments y'know, when I just blurt shit out.

    Te Ika-a-Māui • Since Mar 2008 • 2117 posts Report Reply

  • Gen,

    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.

    Since Nov 2009 • 12 posts Report Reply

  • Andre Alessi,

    May I suggest you wear knee pads, those alleyways can play havoc on your trousers.

    I don't suppose anyone would have a lead on where I could buy a nice pair of chaps? The leather kind.

    (OK, that one really is unrecoverable.)

    Anyway, I think that this turn in the conversation brings up one of the disturbing double standards of media coverage of celebrities: without intending to excuse said nameless individual for said nameless act, I can guarantee you that the media would be far less interested in this if it wasn't a "sexual offence".

    Imagine a celebrity busted for fraud in the course of trying to obtain a mortgage-I can practically hear the yawns from the Herald editorial team from here. Not to mention the fact that we as a society simply care less about some crimes than about others (in ways unrelated to the seriousness with which our legal system treats these offences.) Not to beat a dead horse, but this really is all about titillation-the reporters aren't for a moment trying to cover this story to help out the victim, they just want a juicy story.

    Devonport, New Zealand • Since Nov 2006 • 864 posts Report Reply

  • Rick Shera,

    ... and lets not forget that the obtaining of a suppression order or strong resistance to the granting of one will often be a significant bargaining chip in the dance orchestrated by media/legal minders for impugned celebrities or their victims. As someone has already said, name suppression creates that sense of mystery and titillation and that too can be advantageous to one side or the other (let alone increasing the bid price for the exclusive - suppression as a mechanism for creating competitive tension if you will).

    BTW, not being in Wellington, I will not be able to attend what looks to be a perfectly timed one day conference hosted by InternetNZ on this - a heavy weight line-up of speakers so would be well worth a look in http://www.internetnz.net.nz/issues/newzealand/r-v-the-internet-seminar

    Auckland • Since Feb 2008 • 23 posts Report Reply

  • Russell Clarke,

    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.

    Perhaps their relative heights.

    -36.76, 174.61 or thereab… • Since Nov 2006 • 164 posts Report Reply

  • mark taslov,

    Yeah, there must be something in the discharge hullabaullo :O

    Te Ika-a-Māui • Since Mar 2008 • 2117 posts Report Reply

  • AnthonyJT,

    It's ironic that in some ways the quickest way to get your name published is to ask for (or better yet, get) name suppression. On a busy day in the number one courtroom at Auckland District Court it's easier to just get lost in the mass of humanity (or should that be inhumanity...) than to draw some bored to death court reporter's attention.

    At any rate, Russell's post is one of the most sensible things I've read in the media on the subject. Celebrity sells certainly but is publication of the name in the public interest or is it just something that the public are interested in? If a leading moral campaigner is convicted of a reasonably serious offence then that's something that the public have a right to know about. The same is also true of those who seek public office - we have a right to know the true character of our (un)elected representitives. On the other hand, the son or daughter of a celebrity or politician or even of a morals campaigner are just who they are and can't help being who they are. To put it another way - it's not their fault their parent's famous. Yet the mainstream "news" media will swoop on this like a B-grade tabloid.

    Ultimately, the complaints about special treatment for celebrities is somewhat tautologous - media interest in them derives from their status and absent that status there would be no interest and, in turn, no reason or justificaiton for suppressing their name. Forget about "creating" a special class - it already exists independent of the justice system.

    One last thought - despite the Herald's crusade, it's notable that they haven't sought to challenge Judge Paul's decision. Given this, it's only fair to ask why not and whether the reason is because the advice they were given was that they'd most likely loose?

    London • Since Sep 2009 • 2 posts Report Reply

  • Kaipara Possum,

    IMO John Key breached the suppression order as he announced that he came to know the identity of the "mystery" celebrity through unofficial channels (as well as the "channel" is in breach of course).

    But besides, what civilized third world country has even comparable "suppresssion" rulings? On top of that we have a majority believing it's ok to beat your children to a pulp! And if the govt believes otherwise they cry foul and fashism?

    Democratic process should be a priviledge extended to competent members of society (like those with an IQ of at least, say, 80). Which would mean 60% wouldn't even be allowed to vote. I bet NZ would be a real nice place...

    Kaipara Harbour / Northla… • Since Nov 2008 • 6 posts Report Reply

  • Angus Robertson,

    Because getting consensual blowjobs in alleyways is the norm.

    Not yet, but I'm willing to put my body on the line to make it so.

    May I suggest you wear knee pads, those alleyways can play havoc on your trousers.

    In the event of a non-consensual blowjob remember to chew 30 times before swallowing.

    Auckland • Since May 2007 • 984 posts Report Reply

  • Andre Alessi,

    Democratic process should be a priviledge extended to competent members of society (like those with an IQ of at least, say, 80). Which would mean 60% wouldn't even be allowed to vote. I bet NZ would be a real nice place...

    As much as I allow myself to despair from time to time, if the smart can't convince the stupid that some ideas are better than others then they're actually not all that "smart" at all.

    Devonport, New Zealand • Since Nov 2006 • 864 posts Report Reply

  • Russell Clarke,

    Democratic process should be a priviledge extended to competent members of society (like those with an IQ of at least, say, 80). Which would mean 60% wouldn't even be allowed to vote. I bet NZ would be a real nice place...

    Nice to see satire is alive and well here.

    -36.76, 174.61 or thereab… • Since Nov 2006 • 164 posts Report Reply

  • Russell Brown,

    so let me get this straight? typing "i love [name]" is illegal in NZ?

    I'm grateful that one of my colleagues has deleted your comment. As Gen says, you either broke the law or defamed someone. And I did request that no one tried cute ways of saying a suppressed name. The courts hate that.

    Update: Okay, I now know what the original comment was. Clearly, Mark, you don't grasp what suppression orders are about, and the personal risk to me, and you deliberately dishonoured a clear request from me not to do it. WTF is wrong with you? If you do this again, I'll ban you. I'm very, very pissed off.

    Auckland • Since Nov 2006 • 22227 posts Report Reply

  • Russell Brown,

    One last thought - despite the Herald's crusade, it's notable that they haven't sought to challenge Judge Paul's decision. Given this, it's only fair to ask why not and whether the reason is because the advice they were given was that they'd most likely lose?

    Good point. If that is the case, it would presumably be because even the police didn't oppose name suppression for the entertainer. Am I right in thinking that would be fairly unusual in the circumstances?

    Auckland • Since Nov 2006 • 22227 posts Report Reply

  • mark taslov,

    Update: Okay, I now know what the original was. Clearly, Mark, you don't grasp what suppression orders are about, and the personal risk to me, and you deliberately dishonoured a clear request from me not to do it. WTF is wrong with you? If you do this again, I'll ban you. I'm very, very pissed off.

    Sorry about that Russell, I posted on the wrong thread, won't happen again. I promise. Just out of interest what are the penalties for this kind of thing?

    I'm grateful that one of my colleagues has deleted your comment.

    Hope he/she gets a nice bonus.

    Te Ika-a-Māui • Since Mar 2008 • 2117 posts Report Reply

  • Rick Shera,

    @AnthonyJT wrote:

    Ultimately, the complaints about special treatment for celebrities is somewhat tautologous - media interest in them derives from their status and absent that status there would be no interest and, in turn, no reason or justificaiton for suppressing their name.

    Yes, similar reasoning was accepted by the Court in the Hosking case (where Mike Hosking and his wife sought to restrain publication of pictures of kids in pram being pushed by her on a public street, on the grounds of privacy). They failed on the facts, in part because they themselves had courted publicity and therefore could not complain when it was visited upon them.

    Live by the sword; die by the sword?

    Auckland • Since Feb 2008 • 23 posts Report Reply

  • Steve Barnes,

    One last thought - despite the Herald's crusade, it's notable that they haven't sought to challenge Judge Paul's decision.

    They got the memo from Cactus Kate.
    ;-)

    Peria • Since Dec 2006 • 5521 posts Report Reply

  • Russell Clarke,

    Oh Gods, I feel another Queen Street march coming on.

    -36.76, 174.61 or thereab… • Since Nov 2006 • 164 posts Report Reply

  • Rick Shera,

    I wonder Russell if there should be an innocent dissemination defence for breaching suppression orders. It has always seemed unfair to me that people who endeavour to raise the quality by monitoring/moderating their blogs are therefore more likely to be deemed publishers -> liable for third party posts to the blog. There are innocent dissemination defences for defamation and offensive material and copyright safe harbours for ISPs (which definition currently includes bloggers) so why not for suppression orders?

    The reality may be that unless you go to the lengths of a Vince Seimer, not much will be done about an intentional breach of an order, let alone an inadvertant breach which is cured in the way that you have done here. But, should the online environment need to rely on ad hoc non-enforcement? Don't think so.

    Auckland • Since Feb 2008 • 23 posts Report Reply

  • Just thinking,

    If it helps - I still have no idea who it is.

    If Key hasn't breached the order he sure has shown a heap of contempt for the court.

    Putaringamotu • Since Apr 2009 • 1158 posts Report Reply

  • mark taslov,

    If it helps - I still have no idea who it is.

    Same. The fact that oral transmission of this information is fine, could be read as discrimination against the deaf and illiterate.

    Te Ika-a-Māui • Since Mar 2008 • 2117 posts Report Reply

  • Russell Brown,

    Oh lord. Now the Herald has thrown it to Your Views and vox pops.

    Auckland • Since Nov 2006 • 22227 posts Report Reply

  • Russell Clarke,

    Oh lord. Now the Herald has thrown it to Your Views and vox pops.

    McCoskrie and McVicar are probably already in make-up.

    -36.76, 174.61 or thereab… • Since Nov 2006 • 164 posts Report Reply

  • Andre Alessi,

    Oh lord. Now the Herald has thrown it to Your Views and vox pops.

    I can't wait for them to start soliciting jokes about it on Sideswipe.

    Devonport, New Zealand • Since Nov 2006 • 864 posts Report Reply

  • Gareth Ward,

    Oh lord. Now the Herald has thrown it to Your Views and vox pops.

    Do they always pre-screen Your Views then? Someone on Albert St is very busy redacting at the moment I imagine.

    And we have to remember, "celebrity" doesn't always equal wealth/priviledge/a-good-thing. There would be plenty of people that are widely known, media interesting and whose future earning potential would be substantially harmed by a minor offence being turned into HoS lead fodder. The test isn't "celebrity", the test is "the relevant impact/punishment of publishing" (happy for Graeme et al to post actual legal tests, but ya-kna-mean)

    Auckland, NZ • Since Mar 2007 • 1727 posts Report Reply

First ←Older Page 1 2 3 4 5 10 Newer→ Last

Post your response…

This topic is closed.