Posts by Graeme Edgeler
Last ←Newer Page 1 2 3 4 5 Older→ First
-
The Tribunal would only deal with cases where it determined there had been a breach of the law.
I'm sure it's explained fully elsewhere, but if it has to determine whether there had been a breach of the law, then it sounds like it's dealing with everything.
-
This is the second post to carry the following:
The discussion will be moderated, however this moderation will be in accordance with the normal rules of moderation in this forum (link).
without actually having a (link)...
-
Speaker: Who are the news media?, in reply to Graeme Edgeler,
Final (?) summation:
What the news media do in a democracy is special and worthy of protection. This protection arises because of what they do, not who they are. When others do the same things, they are just as worthy of protection, and that protection is just as important to our democracy.
-
Speaker: Who are the news media?, in reply to Graeme Edgeler,
That wasn’t all that simple, so perhaps an example:
in the definition of agency in s 2 of the Privacy Act 1993, I would change paragraph (xiii) from the current:
agency means any person or body of persons, whether corporate or unincorporate, … but … does not include–
…
(xiii) in relation to its news activities, any news mediumto the more neutral:
agency means any person or body of persons, whether corporate or unincorporate, … but … does not include–
…
(xiii) in relation to its news activities, any person or body of persons, whether corporate or unincorporateIf we wanted to broaden it beyond news to current affairs or beyond, we can have that discussion as well.
Relatively simple law changes can be made to the other statutory protections mentioned.
-
Speaker: Who are the news media?, in reply to Law Commission,
But this example does not affect the need to settle on a definition of news media for other purposes – eg the right to stay in court when others are excluded; exemption from the Privacy Act principles; exemption from s9 of the the Fair Trading Act (which is currently confined to newspapers and broadcasters).
The simple point is:
if engaging in misleading or deceptive conduct in trade is necessary for what newspapers do, then the exclusion shouldn't just apply to them. Any person trying to break a story who needs to use deceptive conduct in trade should be able to do so, even if it's the first and last time they're involved in such a wanton act of journalism.
likewise, if an exemption from Privacy Act principles is required so as to not unreasonably limit the free expression of those involved in breaking news, it should apply to the activity. The exemption should not apply only to the class of persons who usually undertake that activity.
And (although I recognise this will be the most difficult in practice), if a person is fulfilling the role of a journalist in watching court proceedings, the ability to stay in a closed court should not rest on the existence of credentials, but, like everything else so far listed, it should apply to the activity, and any person undertaking that activity should be able to benefit.
The activity of news, and the activity of journalism seem to be important. These should be protected. But the protections should apply to the activities: is what this person doing journalism ? If the answer is yes, they shouldn't have to jump through another hoop before getting the protections we feel that engaging in such activities requires.
Thus far, I'm not convinced we need a definition of news media. Every example that has been listed of the privileges that apply to news media should apply to everyone when engaging in the activity that, until recently, news media were the exclusive providers of.
[p.s. what misleading or deceptive conduct in trade do newspapers actually want to be able to undertake? Particularly when it appears magazines get along fine while prohibited from undertaking misleading or deceptive conduct in trade.]
-
Speaker: Who are the news media?, in reply to Stephen Judd,
publication must be regular and not occasional
So the sources of evidence for Nicky Hager’s books are not protected? Try again, Law Commission.
-
Do Nicky Hager's books qualify as a "news medium"? A court would likely stretch the definition, but on a simple first reading of the definition, I'd say not.
-
Speaker: Who are the news media?, in reply to Russell Brown,
Assuming that we don’t want, say, white-collar criminals or malicious bloggers to use it as a loophole to avoid answering questions or producing documents, this would seem to bring us back to the need to answer the question in the title of this discussion. We need to define who the news media are.
I disagree (on that example anyway). The right to protect a source could apply to anyone involved in the publication of such information to be weighed (as it currently is with journalists) against the public interest. Malice and crime could easily be weighed in the public interest exercise.
I do not meet the test for “journalist” in the Evidence Act. My blog does not meet the test for “news medium”, but if I break a story on Legal Beagle, on the basis of information gained through a confidential informant whom I promised confidence, I like to think I’d tell authorities to bite me if they asked or told me to disclose. My right to do so could arise out of broader definitions, or it could arise out of changing the law so that it applies to situations, and not classes of people. Put me down as favouring the latter.
I’m open to the possibility that we may need a definition of news media for some particular right, but none has been pointed out yet. The right to take notes in the House, and in Court, and protection of confidential sources, can and should be protected for everyone, not just journalists.
Next media privilege, please :-)
-
Adding further to my comment above:
what additional rights do the media have that other New Zealanders do not?
why is each of these rights limited to media, and is the denial of these rights to other New Zealanders justifiable in 2012? -
One way to resolve some of the issues, might be to give us all more rights: why on Earth can't I take notes while sitting in the back of a court? Or while seated in the public gallery of the House of Representatives? Why should these things be limited to any class of persons at the whim of a Judge or the Speaker? It is difficult to believe these limits can be demonstrably justified in a free and democratic society.
News media may be given more rights, but isn't at least part of the problem that (some of?) these rights are seen as special privileges, instead of rights available to all?