Internet and local laws etc...

[varkk]

Well I guess that everyone here has heard about how an online paper in another country has named the people involved in that attempted kidnapping this week, even though a judge has granted name suppression to all parties, including the intended victim. Now name suppression means that it is a crime to publish this information, but it only applies to NZ, so it can be published overseas, but since anyone in NZ can go and look it up, then it is available here and technically they are breaking our laws. Should these people be made accountable for this or not?

Also if they can do it without any problems, what is to stop others from setting up a website in another country just to publish information suppressed in NZ. This could easily get out of control and be abused to defame someone


p.s Please don't mention the names involed in this case or even point people to the site, that will make you break our law and get OCNZ + mods into trouble

[KingJackal]

They can not be punished. They will not be punished. And I will never support their punishment based purely on our laws.

( bet you're worried now )

Think of it this way. In Laos, mere mention of anything Christian can cause instant imprisonment. Does this mean that any New Zealander should be punishable under THEIR laws because people in Laos ( *cough* if they could get net connections *cough* ) can still read it?

Law must be consistent, therefore I say there is no issue.

*Once again, /me sets himself up for another vigorous debate*

[Ragnor]

They are not allowed to publish the names when courts in their own country grant name supression.

They are clearly morally wrong in publishing this info, just another example of the rampant tabloidisation over there. Big sensational headlines sell papers.. who cares about morals and decent conduct.

KJ, your example is just extreme and doesn't really relate to the situation.

:D

[Antallica]

This reminds me of that homicide that happened down south (in terms of where I live) and those photo's somehow managed to appear on r*t*en.com (don't want to be too obvious). I think xtra tried to ban that url from anyone using their isp from viewing that site. I do believe that the owner of that site has removed those pictures now.

Your right there KJ, nobody here can do anything about it because they are just not in NZ soil. Unless the NZ gov. manages to get the authorities in that certain country to stop it however I don't see it being removed or whatnot anytime soon. Unless the major isp's go and block that site from the NZ eyes.

[Grrr!!]

I don't think it is right that this information is published overseas.
I don't think it is right to sue the publishers overseas.
I don't think it is right to block the overseas publisher's sites.

So what to do?!

[GriffiN]

Originally posted by varkk
a judge has granted name suppression to all parties, including the intended victim.

To all partys...? so why was one shown on tv news today
holding his injured arm (biten by a dog and a tendon is damaged).
He talked to the cameras about it against laywers advice.

If you have name suppression... doesn't that usually mean
they blank out the faces when on camera too?

[Deviant]

Originally posted by Ragnor

KJ, your example is just extreme and doesn't really relate to the situation.

:D

I thought KJ's answer was good. With law it's based on fact, whether it be extreme or not. (no I'm not a lawyer) The extremity may come into the amount of punishment, but not whether it's right or wrong.

I personally think judges use name suppression far too much. Don't get me wrong though, we still need it.

[Sydog]

I think if requested to take the names out on the site they would, unless they are actually doing illegal things.

Since it isn't published in New Zealand the amount of damage caused is minimal. the visitors will be mainly from overseas so the name wouldn't get out int the NZ public very easily

[varkk]

Originally posted by KingJackal
*Once again, /me sets himself up for another vigorous debate*

yeah well that was most of the reason I put it out there to stir up some debate etc, you'd think that with an election just days away people would be busy debating already...


Anyway, yeah I agree that name suppression is used far too much these days, can you remember when that guy got convicted of trying to organise through a prostitute to hire a young girl for a night? He got convicted, had to pay some limp fine and got granted name suppression "So as not harm his business and negativly affect his employees"
So anyway, the gossip pointed the finger at one Chch businessman, then another. In the end the name suppression had to be lifted to protect these innocent people, but they still suffered a loss of revenue during the time that the doubt still lingered.

Should certain aspects of law be altered to take into account the global nature of communication now, should we have global laws to govern this or what. I personally don't think that global laws would do much good, although I think that agreements between nations could be put in place to protect against these sort of events. when their legal systems and beliefs are compatible(e.g NZ and Britain; we still ,for now anyway, have the privy council and are members of the commonwealth)