Hard News: Being Worked
94 Responses
First ←Older Page 1 2 3 4 Newer→ Last
-
That seems unmanageable - as generally speaking when The Herald publishes something it end up on their website. So is the Paper version of The Herald (or the video version of 3 News) any different, legally from their online version?
And if online news sites can't publish it, what about blogs?
-
Spot the judge pissing into the wind there. The TV3 and TV 1 news stories will be up on youtube before you can say "freedom of information on the information super highway".
-
Does anyone know how long it is before the Veitch trial goes to court??
Measured in the number of Sundays I guess.
-
Does anyone know how long it is before the Veitch trial goes to court??
says here that itll be at least a year.
-
A year!!!
52 more revelations…
-
Sorry here
-
Veitch has had his big public apology and various proxies have popped up to heap scorn on his ex and testify to his character. If we're weighing who has had the most chance to put their side in public, I'd say he's by far had the better of it.
Quite. Especially the way so much o the Auckland media mafia appear to have closed ranks around him. Has anyone other than Matthew Ridge actually expressed anything negative about his admitted behaviour?
-
Thanks, Alan. Thought I recognised the Judge's name - some people never learn:
http://www.nzherald.co.nz/section/1/story.cfm?c_id=1&objectid=141816 -
That is about the most retarded thing I have heard in a long time.
Time to take an IT refresher course me thinks your honor. -
"Does anyone know how long it is before the Veitch trial goes to court??"
Speaking of court appearances when does that ex Labour MP Mr Field appear in the dock?
-
From what I saw in the supermarket queue yesterday, there is still a lot of public interest about this. Not justifying it, but it’s there.
And that's my problem right there, LegBreak. I'm personally rather interested in whether Anthony Starr and Tammy Davis great as freaky in real life as they do on TV, but I think you'd be really stretching to find a legitimate "public interest" in getting the perv cam out for documentary evidence.
-
Ian, I always pay attention to the bigger picture and the un-level playing field when it comes to stories like the Veitch one.
-
That is about the most retarded thing I have heard in a long time.
Time to take an IT refresher course me thinks your honor.One thing that can safely be said is that he's not doing it out of ignorance.
David Harvey is the author of a textbook on NZ cyberlaw, and he probably knows more about the internet on a technical level than any other judge in the country.
Readers may also recall him as the judge who made the suppression order in the notorious case of Peter Lewis, the pot-smoking billionaire.
-
Time to take an IT refresher course me thinks your honor.
Not for David Harvey it's not. He's probably the most IT-savvy judge we've got, bar none. I've been party to discussions with Justice Harvey on usenet, way back when. His grasp of matters technical is very solid.
-
I think the sub judice rule - not unlike the Privacy Act - often takes on the shades of meaning of those - in this case defence lawyers - who want it to mean something helpful to them.
Given that the summary is likely to have been provided the journalists by the defence side, I think any concern expressed by them is just wind.
But if it turns out that Team Veitch has not only leaked the summary, but selectively leaked it for PR purposes, well, I think there are problems there.
-
One thing that can safely be said is that he's not doing it out of ignorance.
David Harvey is the author of a textbook on NZ cyberlaw, and he probably knows more about the internet on a technical level than any other judge in the country.
Readers may also recall him as the judge who made the suppression order in the notorious case of Peter Lewis, the pot-smoking billionaire.
Point taken, however, he could hardly think that there is any real restriction he could put in place that will prevent someone from "Googling someone's name and being able to access it later"... Will not the 'Digital replica' of the Herald be accessible online? Or does that get censored?
In addition, what is to stop someone from going to the local library and looking up the Herald article containing the names?
Is the assumption that web content is more easily accessible and therefore in need of more stringent restriction? I am a little confused as to the desired outcome here... -
Is the assumption that web content is more easily accessible and therefore in need of more stringent restriction? I am a little confused as to the desired outcome here...
It has the smack of experiment to me, as if Harvey has identified a real problem -- the internet never forgets, even if you're not convicted -- and decided to try a "solution".
I think it will end up with a number of people -- including those who'd normally be inclined to respect suppression orders -- repeating the name online, just on principle.
-
You would think that a blanket suppression order would be the only way to enforce this, but I take the 'experiment' point. It will be interesting to see how it pans out.
-
Is the assumption that web content is more easily accessible and therefore in need of more stringent restriction? I am a little confused as to the desired outcome here...
As am I - I love to be Mr Devils Advocate over here, but for the life of me can't find a logically-consistent basis to argue his point from at the moment!
He's publishing - so doesn't want the info held back
He's allowing news outlets to publish - just not via their online sites
He's allowing other, much less reputable, web media to publish.=?
Would be interesting to see more of the info behind this call
-
But if it turns out that Team Veitch has not only leaked the summary, but selectively leaked it for PR purposes, well, I think there are problems there.
Well, does anyone else remember when David Benson-Pope authorised a staff member to selectively (and misleadingly) "brief" the Herald on Sunday on the contents of the Police report into certain allegations made against him before it was publicly released? Must be nice having press secretaries who can carry the can for you.
-
Has anyone other than Matthew Ridge actually expressed anything negative about his admitted behaviour?
not that i've heard. i actually heard a dj on george fm the other day bemoaning his perception that "poor old tony veitch is about to be hung, drawn and quartered".
poor old tony veitch? never mind all the (admittedly sinister) stuff about whose PR team is winning the media battle ... there is a version of "surely not good old tony, he's such a good bloke" going on here. if he gets away with it, it'll be because of that process. people just won't believe it.
if i hear one more media personality / non-personality saying "veitchy" i think i will be sick.
-
not that i've heard. i actually heard a dj on george fm the other day bemoaning his perception that "poor old tony veitch is about to be hung, drawn and quartered".
Really? My rancid little reactionary soul thinks prolonged and satistic public execution would be a ratings winner and delightful fun:
"The greatest and most grievous punishment used in England for such as offend against the State is drawing from the prison to the place of execution upon an hurdle or sled, where they are hanged till they be half dead, and then taken down, and quartered alive; after that, their members and bowels are cut from their bodies, and thrown into a fire, provided near hand and within their own sight, even for the same purpose."
But it's just a wee bit drama queen-ish to suggest Veitch is going through any such thing. He's been charged with a serious offence, and will be afforded the full rights, privileges and protections as anyone else. He might actually do himself a few favours if he (on the QT) told his more vocal fans to STFU, but that's just me.
-
Has anyone other than Matthew Ridge actually expressed anything negative about his admitted behaviour?
Raybon Kan wrote very pointed SST columns two weeks in a row when the story broke, condemning the alleged assaults as being "not ok, ever".
-
Raybon Kan wouldn’t be part of the Auckland pseudo-celeb media in-crowd though, would he?
-
Point taken, however, he could hardly think that there is any real restriction he could put in place that will prevent someone from "Googling someone's name and being able to access it later"... Will not the 'Digital replica' of the Herald be accessible online? Or does that get censored?
The whole point of the order is that the online versions aren't allowed to carry the name. The Herald Online will have to be reworded, as will the other papers.
I'm curious to see how the TV news will deal with it. It's easy enough to not carry the names in the text summaries, but will they also beep out the names if mentioned in the newscasts, and pixelate the faces of the accused?
Post your response…
This topic is closed.