Posts by Margaret B
Last ←Newer Page 1 2 3 4 5 Older→ First
-
We seem to have two mutually exclusive interpretations here:
A - Tim saying that s 53 (1) requires disclosure of name and address regardless of how much the blog costs (or doesn't) (I'm confused, are blogs special here, or is Tim saying this applies to all political stuff that isn't explicitly excluded on the basis of being "news media"?)
OR
B - Idiot Savant saying that blogs (and indeed other stuff?) won't be caught (for the purposes of disclosure of name and address) unless they are either
i) commercialised by dint of heavy advertising (and not saved by being "news media" as PA is), or
ii) cost more than $12,000 a year to run, if not targeted to a specific electorate, or
iii) cost more than $1000 a year to run, if targeted to a specific electorate, or
iv) reasonably directly affiliated to a party, eg the blog of a candidate.Have I got those summaries right?
And how on earth do we reconcile the difference?!
-
Thanks Idiot Savant for clarifying about personal blogs.
However, I could forsee some wrangling about what is a "personal blog" as opposed to one that is affiliated with a party, due to the author being a member of a particular party. Take for example Tony Milne's blog - he's an open member of Labour, and while I for one read his blog as very much his personal opinions others frequently lambast him for being a party hack. Now if Tony is a candidate in the next election would he need to put authorisation on his blog, ie name and address?
And if he would then wouldn't it also apply to those who write pseudonymously but are actually members/candidates/campaign managers/pollsters/whatevers for a particular party in real life?
I have no idea whatsoever, but I'd be interested in some possible answers.
One thing we learnt (I hope) in the s59 debate is that you can have a lot of legal opinions flying around that conflict. Having a legal opinion that says X does not necessarily mean that X will be the definite outcome. But I have taken a lot of heart from the fact sheets I already mentioned that were put out on s59 - because they have turned out to be right about how the law is being used. Surely a little light on the subject, by way of a similar mechanism, would be a good thing?
Craig, on the issue of people hiding behind pseudonyms to attack others, I agree with you that for some people using an imaginary name (or indeed none at all) does seem to be a licence to troll, threaten and generally display a complete inability to play well with others. But it doesn't mean everyone who posts anonymously does it. There are many examples on the NZ political blogs of those who act responsibly (although I concede that those who only comment, rather than actually blog, tend to be far more rabid and unpleasant).
Also if you want to you can just use a pseudonym that looks like a real name, and everyone will assume you are using your real name when in fact you are not. I assumed Shep Cheyenne was a real name and have no evidence to prove otherwise.
It is totally not ok to write that kind of stuff about you btw (the pedophile comments you mentioned earlier). I would feel sick if it was me and no one should have to put up with it, whether they can shrug it off or not. I would have hoped that moderation would have put an end to it.
-
The practice of having to have your real name and address on your political blog would have a very definite chilling effect, particularly on those who maintain pseudonyms now because of possible consequences such as impact on their employment or stalking. I think this could be particularly problematic for woman political bloggers, and others who don't fit into the dominant white heterosexual male demographic.
For example there was a female right-wing blogger who blogged under her own name until some creep started mentioning that he knew where she worked and that he was going to make trouble for her at the company and so on. She reinvented herself under a pseudonym.
It seems to me what might be necessary here is a set of guidelines for how the law is intended to be interpreted. Something like the fact sheets that some of those organisations (like the organisation Deborah Morris heads these days, sorry I can't remember the name) put out during the s59 debate.
-
Someone correct me if I'm wrong here, and I may well be, but wasn't it the addresses on the Exclusive Brethren leaflets that were the first tip off to who was behind the campaign? I can't remember, but I thought it was important for some reason.
I will be interested to see what the HRC, the CTU and the Law Commission say about the amended Bill. For some strange reason I'm not all that inspired to take Farrar's criticisms at face value. He has rather a vested interest in portraying the new Bill as worse still, there needs to still be something wrong with it for National to continue to oppose it.
-
Peter Hunter: The accused who were remanded in custody and whose trials were shifted to Auckland from Wellington were transported up by prison van and plane (ie at the cost of Corrections). Now that they have been bailed the responsibility for their travel home to Wellington (and back to Auckland for trial unless they are in custody at the time) will be borne by them personally. I suspect that they will now have a strong argument to shift their case back to Wellington.
I understand this is the same for anyone in a similar situation (ie not just cos of the T word).
And go blindjackdog!
-
And here was me thinking "tapped" referred to tapping someone's phone etc, as in surveillance. My word Russell, imagine the arguments we could have interpreting your words in 2000 years time! ;-)
-
They did dress up as stormtroopers and seal off an entire town
I'm sure I'm not the only sci-fi geek who was pained to read this. Everyone (surely) knows that stormtroopers wear white.
-
Thanks for clearing up about warrants under the Crimes Act vs the TSA Idiot Savant. I am a bit of a dumbo when it comes to these things!
Like Danyl I would very much like to know how may intercepts have been applied for, and how many granted.
-
The reason I asked about the defence having any opportunity to scrutinise the "evidence" before it went to the SG (waaay back in this thread) was because I was interested to know if the SG had made his decision based solely on what the police provided, without any submissions from the defence as to explanations, mitigation, etc.
On Nine to Noon this morning Broad said that the interception warrants were granted by the High Court Judge under both the TSA and the Crimes Act. I'm not sure on the legal ins and outs of that, whether it means some types of surveillance were under the TSA and some under the Crimes Act.
Broad also said that none of the surveilled material would now be able to be used which suggests either a) it was all only relevant to charges under the TSA, not the Crimes Act and/or b) the juicy stuff was only gathered under the warrants from the TSA, not the Crimes Act. Am I way off track with that?
Does anyone else feel a Nicky Hager book coming on?
-
Correct me if I'm wrong here, but I'm assuming that the police evidence put to the SG hasn't suffered any scrutiny from defence counsel?