Hard News: The judge is not helping
116 Responses
First ←Older Page 1 2 3 4 5 Newer→ Last
-
Russell Brown, in reply to
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.
-
Sacha, in reply to
I didn't think he was admitting as much as some others thought he was admitting.
I can respect that position as well.
-
Sofie Bribiesca, in reply to
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 :) -
Russell Brown, in reply to
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.
-
DexterX, in reply to
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.
-
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." -
Richard Stewart, in reply to
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")
-
Matthew Poole, in reply to
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.
-
Matthew Poole, in reply to
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.
-
Paul Williams, in reply to
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.
-
Matthew Poole, in reply to
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.
-
alobar, in reply to
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]) -
Matthew Poole, in reply to
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.
-
DexterX, in reply to
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.
-
so surely there's an alternative - subpoena the guy who's supposed to have run off with the disk
-
nzlemming, in reply to
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
Post your response…
This topic is closed.