Posts by Graeme Edgeler
Last ←Newer Page 1 2 3 4 5 Older→ First
-
Hard News: MegaBox: From f**k-all to zero, in reply to Idiot Savant,
(And as for ethically: my screen, my eyeballs, my brain. Absolutely I get to control and filter my inputs however I like. Your rights as a creator do not extend to parasitizing my brain space, or to dictating how I experience and interact with your product)
Do you exercise your rights similarly with off-line content? Do you have someone blank out the ads in magazines, or hold up screens in front of bus-shelter advertising?
-
Legal Beagle: The hopeful disallowance…, in reply to Moz,
I said child porn because R18 material is normally called porn
R18 stuff can include a variety of non-porn things (horror, for example, like The Exorcist).
By definition, anything that is R18 is not child porn. Child Porn is R(Everyone) (or should that be R(No-one)?).
-
Legal Beagle: The hopeful disallowance…, in reply to Moz,
t is an offence to produce or disseminate photos of people under 18 when those photos would be classified as R18 by the censor. Obvious enough. The maximum penalty for that is 5 years jail, because bulk distribution of child pron is bad.
Child porn is not R18. Child porn is banned. R18 material is stuff that adults are allowed, but children are not.
In New Zealand, showing something like a photo that would be classified as R18 to someone who is not 18 carries a $3000 fine. If you knew it would be (or was) restricted, this ups the maximum penalty to three months' imprisonment.
-
Legal Beagle: The hopeful disallowance…, in reply to Matthew Poole,
One might end up on an unofficial register drawn up by one of the various groups that abound, but pending confirmation from Graeme I’m pretty sure there’s no public government register.
Confirmed.
-
Legal Beagle: The hopeful disallowance…, in reply to Rich of Observationz,
Without trying to untangle the legal side, there are very good reasons to suppress identity in Teachers Council proceedings
There are also very good reasons to suppress identity in disciplinary proceedings relating to doctors and other medical professionals. They decisions are appropriately made on a case-by-case basis. You decide what needs to be suppressed, not what it is permissible to be released.
It’s the open justice equivalent of the difference between the Official Secrets Act and the Official Information Act. Both deal with protecting sensitive information from damaging release, but the approaches to that issue couldn’t be more different.
knowledge that a teacher has been before the council will have a negative impact on their relationship with future students, potentially damaging their education
I can't see that this is any different from doctors. And if it's appropriate in a particular case, a suppression order limited to that information can be made.
-
Legal Beagle: The hopeful disallowance…, in reply to Raymond A Francis,
Good to see someone prepared to do the hard yards on these matters
Now if only I could invoice someone for it! You out there, Bryce Johns? I'm very reasonably priced :-)
-
Hard News: The mathematics of marriage, in reply to Craig Young,
No, Greg, that’s ‘consensual adult’ incest, which I’m profoundly sceptical about.
I think, but may be wrong, that he was looking at the definition of marriage equality I was offered, and found that it would include the marriage of siblings (or other other couples within the pairings we currently consider too close).
Marriage equality as defined would seem to permit that.
I note that in one sense, we have already allowed for it, for example, in the Stockman-Howe Marriage Act 1985.
-
Hard News: On Freedom, in reply to Kyle Matthews,
Law Schools don’t have much at all to do with admission to the bar, so any advice that students received while at university would be informal/gossip.
Law Schools are asked to comment on the suitability of each of their graduates for admission. I know of one instance around my time, where the Law School opposed admission of a graduate, which was at least initially successful.
-
There were people who - perhaps quite sensibly - ignored the arguments anyone put forward about politics who mentioned Helen Klark, or Helen Clarke. There are people today who ignore the comments of those complaining about (or complimenting) John Keys.
So can people please take the time to refer to Bob McCoskrie?
-
Hard News: The mathematics of marriage, in reply to TracyMac,
As for the remark about “what is marriage equality”, come on, disingenuous much?
I really did wonder how far it went. I found out, for example, that it is not age-limited, but competency-based.