Hard News by Russell Brown

Read Post

Hard News: The judge is not helping

116 Responses

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

  • Russell Brown, in reply to Graeme Edgeler,

    I’m sorry you feel that way. All I was saying was that when I saw the Media3 interview with Whale, I read it a different way. I didn’t think he was admitting as much as some others thought he was admitting. That’s all.

    I think it's evident that even Slater himself didn't hear the question in the way you say you did.

    Auckland • Since Nov 2006 • 22830 posts Report Reply

  • Sacha, in reply to Graeme Edgeler,

    I didn't think he was admitting as much as some others thought he was admitting.

    I can respect that position as well.

    Ak • Since May 2008 • 19707 posts Report Reply

  • Sofie Bribiesca, in reply to Sacha,

    I didn’t think he was admitting as much as some others thought he was admitting

    .I can respect that position as well.

    Think RB knows how he meant the question to be interpreted.
    Think WOCS answered how he believes that taking money to spread someone else's words that he just happens to agree with is fine. Likens it to capitalism even. All about spreading (his) words, for money via someone else's words who got money ....nothing to see here ,moving right along kinda attitude
    Or just that He'll be your bitch as long as he agrees with the ends to the means.
    He could pop in to clarify even?

    "Money, it's a hit
    Don't give me that
    Do goody good bullshit"
    (Pink Floyd lyrics from the song" Money, from the very good album Dark Side of the Moon :)

    here and there. • Since Nov 2007 • 6796 posts Report Reply

  • Russell Brown, in reply to Sofie Bribiesca,

    Think RB knows how he meant the question to be interpreted.
    Think WOCS answered how he believes that taking money to spread someone else’s words that he just happens to agree with is fine.

    Yeah, that’s what he said and I thought the context was clear, and Slater’s subsequent statements made it clearer. I could have been a bit more gracious and acknowledged Graeme’s rather different interpretation of the original interview.

    PS: I should note that Slater in a subsequent interview with David Fisher admitted to demanding money, but said he’d never received any. Which is a bit sad. But we have to go with that. I’m just in no doubt what kind of work he was demanding money for.

    Auckland • Since Nov 2006 • 22830 posts Report Reply

  • DexterX, in reply to Matthew Poole,

    It’s the outcome of the appeal which will create a precedent, one way or the other.

    I consider the appeal judgment won’t have a long reach or wide application.

    The appeal judgement, depending on what it is, will only create precedent that extends to defamation proceedings involving published material that is similar in nature to the material that is the subject of the proceedings between Blomfield and Slater.

    Auckland • Since Nov 2006 • 1224 posts Report Reply

  • Ian Dalziel,

    off-thread - but here's a judge who is helping!
    Judge troubled by WINZ pursuing court cases

    "I fear that the ministry may be losing its
    own sense of proportion here."

    Christchurch • Since Dec 2006 • 7943 posts Report Reply

  • Richard Stewart, in reply to Sofie Bribiesca,

    On the other hand....

    "Beware of whores who say they don't want money.
    What they mean is they want MORE money, much more money"

    (William S Burroughs, from "Words of Advice for Young People")

    Pt Chev • Since Feb 2012 • 71 posts Report Reply

  • Matthew Poole, in reply to DexterX,

    I consider the appeal judgment won’t have a long reach or wide application.

    The appeal judgement, depending on what it is, will only create precedent that extends to defamation proceedings involving published material that is similar in nature to the material that is the subject of the proceedings between Blomfield and Slater.

    It will also define whether or not a blogger of the nature of Slater (if not bloggers more generally) can shelter behind claims to journalism. It must answer that question before any other decision can be rendered, even if it does not answer it directly. In the absence of any other judicial decisions on the subject, it will be the definitive case law on the matter.

    Auckland • Since Mar 2007 • 4097 posts Report Reply

  • Matthew Poole, in reply to Russell Brown,

    I’m just in no doubt what kind of work he was demanding money for.

    Rather an appropriate double entendre for the topic at hand.

    Auckland • Since Mar 2007 • 4097 posts Report Reply

  • Paul Williams, in reply to Matthew Poole,

    In the absence of any other judicial decisions on the subject, it will be the definitive case law on the matter.

    Will it be quite so definitive? Have we seen the construction of the appeal? I'd hope that the High Court would avoid making a broad judgment given the facts as I understand them.

    Sydney • Since Nov 2006 • 2273 posts Report Reply

  • Matthew Poole, in reply to Paul Williams,

    Will it be quite so definitive? Have we seen the construction of the appeal? I’d hope that the High Court would avoid making a broad judgment given the facts as I understand them.

    Given that Blackie ruled that Slater wasn’t entitled to confidentiality of sources because he’s not a journalist, I don’t see how any possible appeal could be constructed that didn’t require addressing that question. It’s pretty much the central thesis of the whole ruling: you are not a journalist, ergo, people who speak to you are not journalistic sources, ergo, there is no entitlement to source confidentiality.

    ETA: even a narrow judgement on these facts remains the law for the district courts, unless the judge writes something that explicitly says the judgement is applicable only to this specific case and shall not be construed as a ruling on the blogger/journalist distinction in any other case. Which is not particularly likely, given that this is the first case that will rule on that distinction. Judges like to be cited.

    Auckland • Since Mar 2007 • 4097 posts Report Reply

  • alobar, in reply to Matthew Poole,

    I suspect that even if he were to be somehow persuaded that WO is primarily a news site , Blackie would still say that the protections don't apply in this particular case .
    (see .. [17])

    auckland • Since Apr 2010 • 63 posts Report Reply

  • Matthew Poole, in reply to alobar,

    I suspect that even if he were to be somehow persuaded that WO is primarily a news site , Blackie would still say that the protections don’t apply in this particular case .

    Quite possibly. But such decision would still rule on the matter of WO being a news site. Because Slater has pleaded that WO is a news medium and thus he is a journalist, any ruling in any direction hinges on that. If he's a journalist and thus source anonymity applies, it is so. Or if he is but it does not. Or if he's not, and thus it cannot. Those are the three options, and in any one of them there's a ruling on his being a journalist. If Blackie had ruled that he is a journalist and anonymity applies there would probably have been a different appeal on that matter so we'd still be seeing it go before the High Court.

    Auckland • Since Mar 2007 • 4097 posts Report Reply

  • DexterX, in reply to Matthew Poole,

    Matters revolve around the "the issues to be determined in that proceeding". s68.2 Evidence Act.

    http://www.legislation.govt.nz/act/public/2006/0069/latest/DLM393681.html

    Form what I understand of this case from reports on the pleadings of both parties - Slater based his "published material", from a hard drive (stolen) that belonged to Blomfield's and was given to Slater by Blomfield's former employer (under a fanchise arrangement).
    Blomfield only had one employer in such circumstance.

    The informant’s, Slater's source, identity is known to both parties - IMHO there is no service to the public interest in this case in not allowing Bloomfield the disclosure sought.

    Auckland • Since Nov 2006 • 1224 posts Report Reply

  • Paul Campbell,

    so surely there's an alternative - subpoena the guy who's supposed to have run off with the disk

    Dunedin • Since Nov 2006 • 2622 posts Report Reply

  • nzlemming, in reply to Paul Campbell,

    so surely there’s an alternative – subpoena the guy who’s supposed to have run off with the disk

    Surely that's the problem? Slater won't divulge the name so they have no-one to subpoena. I don't think you can subpoena someone on the suspician that they may have stolen your property, or Blomfield would have done it, because any testimony they could give would tend to incriminate themselves. Making a connection from Slater to his source allows them to ask where he/she got the disk from and so establish a chain of evidence. #IANAL

    Waikanae • Since Nov 2006 • 2933 posts Report Reply

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

Post your response…

Please sign in using your Public Address credentials…

Login

You may also create an account or retrieve your password.