Posts by Russell Brown
-
I've just been talking to Linda Herrick and it looks like there'll be a correction in the Herald tomorrow -- approved by Shayne Currie.
I think she deserves great credit for the way she's handled this.
-
Ooh. And look what's in the High Court today:
A man's fight to have a defamatory post removed from an international website has been heard in the High Court in Auckland this morning.
The man's case is a first according to his lawyer, Matthew McClelland, who said "the liability of an Internet Service Provider (ISP) is still at large in New Zealand".
"It's a novel question."
He told the court the case focuses on three key questions.
What is Google New Zealand's responsibility, is Google a publisher and does the innocent dissemination of defamatory material defence apply?
The case hinges on a post that first appeared on an American "consumer advocacy" website called RipoffReport.com in 2008.
It said 'A', who worked in the medical profession in New Zealand, had been caught masturbating over photographs of children.
It included his name, address, profession and contact information.
However, other than an alias including the word 'Kiwi', the site did not reveal anything about the person who wrote the post or how to get in contact.
McClelland said his client denied the claims made in the post.
When 'A's name was typed into a search engine such as Google or YahooXtra, the link and a snippet from the post appeared high up in the search results.
-
Speaker: Censorship is not the only…, in reply to Alan Wilkinson,
Existing criminal sanctions are likely quite adequate. What should be considered is improving young people’s ability to initiate appropriate criminal complaints and prosecutions.
Something like the Disputes Tribunal? Also: in the case of defamation, there's no criminal offence.
Regarding other misinformation the ability to require the publishers to issue retractions, refutations and corrections should be considered.
You'd think. But it's hard to require a publisher to say what you think they should say if the publishers has not volunteered to be subject to your jurisdiction.
-
Speaker: Censorship is not the only…, in reply to Rich of Observationz,
Firstly, I’d suggest better education on internet use: that the best approach to annoyance/harassment is to simply killfile the offender and move on; that if you find a site obnoxious, you should simply not go there; that information on the internet can be posted by anybody and should be treated as nonsense until proven otherwise (akin to graffiti or pub chatter).
I don't think you can assume that simply ignoring harassment will make it go away -- whether it's a matter of threatening behavior or simply harmful statements. And if false and damaging information about you is on the first couple of pages of Google results for your name, ignoring it won't change that.
That said, you raise valid concerns.
-
Hard News: It's In the Kete!, in reply to Craig Ranapia,
Golly, so a time-tested and (spectacularly successful) local format gets a classy yet (I suspect) cost-effective re-boot.
It's probably not cheap as such -- they're driving a whole production (in a bloody big truck) around the North Island -- but I think you do see the budget on screen.
-
Do you support the idea of an alternative tribunal able to provide speedy and efficient remedies for those who have been harmed by an offence on line?
With reservations, yes. As a lower-level alternative to defamation action, which is expensive for both parties, the idea of a tribunal clearly has some merit.
But we do need to bear in mind that tribunal systems can take on a life of their own. Broadcasters now have permanent resources devoted to complaints via the Broadcasting Standards Authority, which was supposed make life easier.
The question of remedies needs to be considered very carefully. In most cases, the "putting right" should be sufficient, especially if the publisher subject to the complaint is co-operative.
Even if that's not the case, official publication on a site with a higher Google ranking than the offending publication will see the finding ranked higher in results than the original -- especially if the tribunal takes advice on search engine optimisation.
-
Muse: The Good Word, Bad Numbers and The…, in reply to Rob Stowell,
I wonder how many of us emailed?
More than 40.
-
Okay: just to say that Linda Herrick and Rebecca Barry Hill are very sorry that a supportive story turned out like this and Linda is seeing what she can do about a correction and making sure the bogus figure isn’t used again. It’s not a matter of any kind of vendetta.
Rebecca got the figure from ... the Herald website, which rather neatly shows how bad information stays alive when it remains in publication.
-
Capture: Two Tripods, One Night, in reply to 3410,
I always thought it was " fast and bulbous"
+1!
-
Also, Adam Bennett tells me on Twitter that he recently asked Jonathan Coleman about the original error.
Coleman said he got the figure from officials and wasn't concerned that it was misleading.