Slashdot Mirror
Indefinite Imprisonment For Web Site Content
Suriken writes "In an unprecedented move, the New Zealand Solicitor General is seeking an indefinite prison sentence against American businessman Vince Siemer for alleged breach of an interim gag order now more than three years old. Siemer was jailed for six weeks last year for refusing to take down a Web site accusing the chairman of an energy company of suspect business practices. Because he still refuses to take down the site, NZ Solicitor-General David Collins QC wants to lock up Siemer indefinitely, merely for asserting his own free speech. From the article: 'Siemer's [defense] claims the Solicitor General's action is barred by double jeopardy. He also maintains he had long ago proven in Court that the injunction was incorrect in fact and law but that the judge simply ignored the law and evidence. He says the gag order violates his freedom of expression guarantees in these circumstances.' Here's more coverage from an NZ television station."
I like the idea that I have free speech, but it's nothing but a nice sentiment. Free speech is a right, but I can't enforce it. Slander and defamation are crimes, even when they're true (or rather, especially when they're true), so speech is never free. As long as you can be sued for slander, you don't have free speech. I could go on with a rant about everything wrong with the world, specifically Australia, and our legal system, but I'll stop before I do that...
Admit it. You post strawman arguments as AC so you get modded Insightful for refuting them, rather than Troll
When the judge orders you to do something, you do it, or you go to jail until such time as you agree to do it.
That's the only way the court system can work. The judge decides, not you. If you want to appeal, fine, do that, *after* you've followed the judge's orders. Otherwise, why would any other judge even listen to your appeal? It's obvious you don't respect the authority of the court.
How we know is more important than what we know.
Freedom of speech is not a positively enforced inalienable right in New Zealand. If he thinks his right to freedom of expression has been breached, it's possbily correct, but there are other laws which supercede it. He'll be glad to know however, that the maximum period of imprisonment without parole in New Zealand is ten years. No matter what, he can still attempt parole in 2018...
...that Slashdot actually cares that an American is being treated badly outside the USA. There is so much anti-USA sentiment here, it makes Osama Bin Ladin look like Uncle Sam's yes-man.
There's a process to be followed so that you don't just get anarchy.
Engineering is the art of compromise.
and he is suprised they are coming after him why???? here's a news flash for him - if you've been shown to be wrong in a court room, there's a good chance you really ARE wrong and a little self examination is in order.
although the indefinate jail term is pure nonesense he should still expect to go to jail for 6 months or so over it.
If you mod me down, I will become more powerful than you can imagine....
Sorry, that's six weeks, not six months - six days would have been too long, given the nature of his 'crime'.
He's dead.
Engineering is the art of compromise.
Geez, what's the matter with New Zealand? If they bothered to read the First, Fifth, Sixth, and Eighth Amendments to the U.S. Constitution, they'd know that this sort of thing is illegal. I thought this was America, but it's almost like these people live in some other country.
Cheers,
IT
Power corrupts. PowerPoint corrupts absolutely.
Bass fishing? In New Zealand?
From TFA, it looks like this is a fairly straightforward contempt of court case. Creepy; but hardly novel. It is, though, yet another demonstration of an interesting and important difference between American and Commonwealth approaches to defamation cases. In broad terms, truth of the defamatory statement is a much stronger defence in America than in Commonwealth nations.
Obviously, there are loads of details, and the best-laws-money-can-buy/Golden Rule can be a factor; but this is an area where I think that the American model is decisively superior. The idea that you can be subject to punishment just for being impolite enough to speak the truth is pretty creepy.
Seriously, his website has got to be one of the ugliest around, even by 1996 standards.
so I am not really surprised by this. They have big posters of Peter Jackson on all the buildings instead of Kim Jung Ill, but more cannibalism and sheep.
In the USA, the burden is on the person supposedly being slandered to prove that they were actually slandered. Usually, this means that one has to show some sort of an actual economic loss caused by the speech AND, that the speech has to be untrue. Even with all of that, its still pretty hard to actually prevail in court and there's been some pretty famous cases where the media has won. That doesn't mean that we should drop our diligence against those who would claim liability as an excuse to censor, but it does mean that despite the admittedly awful example of domestic security legislation set by the USA, there are still some areas where we are doing ok.
This is my sig.
I agree that his imprisonment is a bit harsh, but he did violate a judge's order. Moreover, it's just stubbornness on his part; knowing there had been a trial in absentia, he should have just stayed out of New Zealand -- very few countries would extradite him for that charge.
has any formal investigation ever been set up to explore the validity of his claims?
These are some pretty serious implications and it would certainly be pretty bad libel or possibly a serious deal of corruption if either side actually published any compelling proof for their side.
Slander and defamation, by definition, require a false statement of fact causing harm to the aggrieved party. Slander is for verbal statements, whereas libel refers to written statements. See slander - wikipedia.
And, at least in the US, slander and defamation are not crimes. Rather, they are civil remedies (a tort) enforceable not by the state through prosecution, but by the aggrieved individual bringing suit.
The New Zealand prosecutor needs to be removed by force from New Zealand, shipped to the
United States where his executions is carried out by iranian medical staff who will
surgically remove his kidneys after which he will be taken to a holding cell and denied
dialysis until his death.
Why on earth did this guy fly back to a country that was likely to imprison him?
Before I read TFA I was reminded of US hostages in Iran; but they had an excuse. They were there and the revolution blew up on them. I can see that. Flying into Iran after the revolution and getting trapped? Your own stupid fault. This is not to suggest that NZ is like Iran; but flying into a country where you are likely to get stuck is just stupid. Did he have any discussion at all with US authorities before leaving? I bet anybody here would have advised that since he returned voluntarily, we weren't going to make an effort to get him back.
For all intensive purposes, "whom" is no longer a word. That begs the question, "who cares"?
Do it yourself, because no one else will do it yourself. [beta blockade 10-17 Feb]
His is being jailed for contempt of court not exercising free speech. He was asked to comply with a temporary order during legal proceedings. He refuses and still does so.
I'm a New Zealander and I'm actually quite angry about the tone the submitter took with this article. While you may feel that people should have the right to unrestricted free speech that is a completely irrelevant argument.
A judge has order Vince Siemer to do something and he has not done it. This must have a serious consequence or there would be no reason for anyone to follow a court order.
He has made his argument in court and lost. He can follow normal process to appeal that decision but refusing a court order is not a valid action.
From what I understand Vince Siemer has been afforded more than ample opportunity to obey the court order and has failed to do so.
The Solictor-General has also stated that Mr Siemer can be released as soon as he agrees to follow the court order. The most likely outcome is that Mr Siemer is imprisoned, he gets annoyed with it and follows the court order.
Indefinite imprisonment is the ultimate punishment and is used rather rarely. These are special cases which deserve it.
There was a case a year or two ago where the Family Court made a custody order which the mother didn't agree with. Some friends of the mother took the child and held him in secret against the court order. The court then imprisoned the mother indefinitely on the grounds that she knew where the child was. It took a few months but eventually the court order was followed and the child went to where the court had ordered.
So, I ask all of you, what else do you expect us to do?
What?
"Shady and morally bankrupt" is defamatory?
It sounds like a statement of opinion to me. Osama Bin Laden thinks he shits golden poop as God's emissary on earth. I think he is shady and morally bankrupt. All of a sudden I'm breaking the law for my opinion? Since when did we start imposing thought crimes?
Read the article - his claims have never been proven to be false.
All you have to do is get enough people who are unified as a community and perform acts of public civil disobedience to agree with you. For referene, see the civil rights movement, women's suffrage movement, India's break from British rule.
Picking up a gun is for cowards who would rather die for a cause than live for one. The only exception (in the modern era) would be a foreign invasion. And then the occupying force would of course label you a terrorist.
Ah well.
If you strike at corruption, corruption can strike back at you.
God spoke to me.
You use to be cool, now you got judges doing dumb shit like this... Geez, you've been hanging out with America too much...
Yup. The biggest city is called Orcland.
Which is where Siemer lives when he is not living in Springfield Missouri.
So if he isn't acting out some LotR role, it seems as if he is in the Simpsons.
Whereas the judges were brought up on Witchfinder General.
There will be a period of channel hopping needed until the scriptwriters create a sitcom that synthesizes it all. Not to worry. The fuss is being created by a television channel so they are working on it.
They do live in another country, but US courts should protect Everyone's rights.
It says so here!
I don't know about contempt of court and all, but that is one ugly web site.
And it gets even worse if you try to enlarge the text size.
Free speech in their constitution or law. US law does not apply.
You want a signature? You can't handle a signature!!
New Zealand indefinitely jails an American for violating a court order. America indefinitely jails foreigners without even filing charges against them. Oh, and tortures them. And sometimes files unknown numbers of them away in secret overseas torture prisons without any accountability.
Seth
$5 / month hosted VPS on linux = awesome!
Next up, whoever keeps hosting goatse!
I think some people are misunderstanding TFA a little.
The Court issued an interim injunction to take down the website - this means that the guy in question was sued for defamation, and the Court said "Hey, we don't know whether this is defamatory or not, so in the interests of fairness, you need to take down the site until the issue is resolved. If it's not defamatory, you can stick it back up. If it is, you have to keep it down".
This is common practice in defamation cases, and the guy is a bit of an idiot for not complying.
Admittedly, the fact that the injunction was issued three years ago and the matter doesn't appear to have reached trial yet is a little unfair. The fact remains, however, that he never took the site down at any time (at least that's what TFA indicates). So the length of time is pretty much irrelevant
I have no idea about the merits of his beef with the Vector guy - but he needs a new web designer - one who tries it on more than one browser - on mine every single line renders as a line of text followed by a line with 1 or 2 words - each line of text in a paragraph is terminated with a BR tag, if your fonts are not just so or your window just so wide it wont work - someone just doesn't understand the whole html thing
Please, learn the two. You never mentioned the specifics of the case. Do you even know what rape is? rape isn't 'violence', rape is defined where by one person is having sexual intercourse with another, and the other party has not voluntarily entered into the arrangement. Rape can occur not only in terms of 'violence' but marriage as well - when one partner imposes themselves on their spouse.
Getting back to the issue of "if you were wearing clothes like that, then you were asking for it" statement, what is the context to the discussion? are we talking about a female who went out to a club in a scantly clad dress, gets a little tispey, starts flirting with a guy, she goes home with the guy, has sex, regrets it, then claims that it was 'rape' because the male took advantage of her in a drunken state?
Please, don't use isolated cases with zero context to some how 'rage against the system' - you're as pathetic as Sue Bradford who tried to blame the law because of child abuse in New Zealand when it is the jury who decides (through guilt or innocence) whether the given action that took place could be classified as suiting the definition of 'reasonable force' as set out by the now repealed section 59 of the Crimes Act.
For a person who is supposedly studying law, you don't seem to have a clue on how the law operates let alone the substance of how how cases are judged.
It seems profoundly dishonest, the way this article tries wring out an issue about "free speech" of this case. We all know that free speech isn't an unlimited right anywhere in the world, and that this is the way it should be. Any freedom will always be limited by the laws that protect all the other rights of people in society; it is a manifestation of serious immaturity and lack of insight to rail against the rule of law, when it is actually the rule of law that gives you the right to freedom that you have.
But back to the case - slandering people is not protected by freedom of speech, nor is it the right way to proceed. If you as a citizen have evidence about questionable activities, you have several legal avenues - if you know of a crime it is your duty to inform the police, so they can pursue the criminals. The only reason for slandering another person or company on a web-site is that one's evidence wasn't good enough to convince either the police, the court or any news-media; and in that case, perhaps you are simply wrong?
The judge is imprisoning him for not taking down the web page, and he is only imprisoning him until he does.
That's reasonable: the guy may have the opinion that he is justified in keeping the web page up, but if the court orders him to take it down, he must comply or face the consequences (imprisonment).
It's the courts that make the decision about what is right or wrong in our societies. You may be morally justified in defying a court, but that isn't without consequences. Given that he has dual citizenship, he can choose to defy the court order and simply stay out of NZ in the future.
"Shady and morally bankrupt" is defamatory?
Yes it is, as whether true or not it could well cause people to take their business elsewhere. Now if it's true then the guy should be in the clear, but until it's been judged one way or the other it's perfectly reasonable for the court to tell the guy to stop saying it until that judgement has been reached.
All of a sudden I'm breaking the law for my opinion?
Yes, that's how libel and slander laws have always worked. You're entitled to your opinion, but if it's damaging to someone's reputation and/or business and you make it public, you'd better be able to back it up with some proof.
It's official. Most of you are morons.
You seem to be very happy posting facts you think are bad for the HBT movement, if this was all you could fins you haven't done much of a job.
If you discriminate, you should be convicted if there are laws against that. I would say it usually is very hard to get convicted of discrimination in a regular court, there have been cases in Sweden were there were videos of discrimination and you still didn't get a sentence (The court stalled the complaint)..
First, what's stopping Vince Siemer from just not going back to New Zealand?
Second, is anyone else just a little bit concerned with the secret nature by which the New Zealand courts work? Hearings are not open to the public and are not allowed to be recorded. I know it isn't the US, but transparency is an important part of justice.
http://yetanotherpoliticalrant.blogspot.com
Forget contempt of court. That's nothing.
... the bill also removes protection from double jeopardy! (in extreme[ly embarrassing lost] cases only of course)
Currently the NZ parliament is pushing though a law that not only takes away the right of the accused to face their accuser (think traumatized rape victims having their grant jury testimony video taped then replayed at the main trial; honourable perhaps, but with that an evil accuser with a vendetta only has to get their story straight once)
And the few marginalized Green Party MPs are the only ones who consider either of these things to be at all problematic!
This is directly out of this morning's newspaper, almost given as an afterthought.
here's a link to a recent RadioNZ [think BBC/PBS] podcast:
http://www.radionz.co.nz/audio/national/ckpt/the_rule_against_double_jeopardy
~.~
I'm a peripheral visionary.
It's a bit more complicated than that for most jurisdictions.
Typically, I can have any opinion I like, and tell others about it ("that restaurant was rubbish"). What I can't do is publicly make a *false statement* which injures someone's business or personal reputation ("that restaurant had cockroaches crawling all over the tables" when I did not see that happen).
However, opinions that imply knowledge of underlying facts, then that can *potentially* be libellous ("he is a fraud"). But I'd think you'd have a hard job showing that "shady and morally bankrupt" implies knowledge of a set of underlying facts that are clearly misleading. All it implies is that the author didn't like the behaviour of the person he was writing about, ie opinion.
I've no idea about the details here, but he should have recognized the stupidity of NZ slander laws, and transfered control of the site to family in the U.S. early. If he was only allowed to submit updates, but not deletions or corrections, then the court simply could not force him.
As a side note, why doesn't someone build up a nice wikipedia article on Michael Stiassny?
The Christian religion has been and still is the principal enemy of moral progress in the world. -- Bertrand Russell
Stop posting AC if you're going to make such inflammatory remarks, I'd like to know who you are so I can avoid your small-mindedness in the future.
Slashdot is not exactly a bastion of anti-American sentiment, sorry. You'll need to look elsewhere to justify your 'poor us' self-pity. People do judge harshly, however, a populace as a whole that votes in a highly unpopular leader, twice. That being said, most sane individuals are able to distinguish between the populace at large and individual persons.
Or you could go back to LGF and take solace in the fact that there are indeed others who have the same pathos as you, to our eternal regret.
He makes some rather strong accusations about sweeping abuse within the NZ judicial system, i.e. court records not being accurately recorded, press not reporting on judicial misconduct, etc. So likely this is all for the best. I doubt the Kiwis will give a rats ass, but creating some ongoing record of his objections to their apparently iffy judicial system is a good thing.
Of course he absolutely must reincorporate his site in the U.S. where the NZ judicial system can not touch it.
The Christian religion has been and still is the principal enemy of moral progress in the world. -- Bertrand Russell
But what's defined as proof? There have been cases in the Western world where people have been sentenced or harrassed for stating verifiable facts. With libel and hate speech laws there's really no telling what some judge or court will decide. They can do whatever they want to, basically. Hate speech laws are particularly vile because facts and evidence don't even factor into them, it's all based on emotional kneejerk responses, political correctness and what the system has arbitrarily decided to do that day.
New Zealand isn't America, so their brilliant understanding of free speech may be words you can only utter to yourself for all I know. But, what I do know is that an American cannot be tried in New Zealand for an American web site. Who knows. Who cares. For some reason, this guy wanted to roll in the dirt with these kiwi idiots without thinking it through. Let's see what happens.
your right to free speech is not absolute. You don't have the right to shout "FIRE!" in a crowded is one oft-quoted example.
The problem here is NOT free speech, and this is NOT justification for arbitrary limits on free speech. That's the road to oppression, and we don't want to go down it.
The problem is the initiation of force. Putting people in danger without their permission. The word "fire" is neither "good" nor "bad" in itself. But in this special context, it serves as an initiation of force. THAT is the core issue. By yelling "fire" in this special context, you are actively putting people in danger, and therefore you are committing an initiation of force against those people. You did NOT commit a crime of "forbidden speech" or some other such nonsense -- again, that is the arbitrary road to oppression. You did, however, commit an act of coercion against others.
Free speech IS absolute, and it should be absolute. Otherwise it doesn't exist at all. That's what freedom means. But at the same time, acts of coercion are still immoral and unjust. There is no inconsistency here -- only common sense.
"I love my job, but I hate talking to people like you" (Freddie Mercury)
American judge does something like this: ZOMG evil oppressive Fascist Americans!
/. responses are "free speech only goes so far"
NZ Judge:
99% of
How does one prove that a particular statement "lowered the opinion of the other person"? Do you take a poll, in the general public, to see what effect the statement had (if any)?
Do you simply ask the *judge* if his/her personal opinion of the individual was lowered in his/her eyes?
Aren't you happy you live in the USA? (For those lucky people who do.)
I imagine that is the kind of thing that you would argue in court. I think that is it something that would be dependent on the person. So if someone was a gay activist and it was revealed that they were secretly married (to a woman) with 2.5 kids etc, that might lower your opinion of the person.
meh
Which members of the public?
What if it is in the best interest of some and not others? Do they hold a vote or poll?
What is "best"? By what criteria is "best" measured? Is it written or documented?
Who decides? Again, vote or poll?
Seems perfectly ripe for abuse.
Is it in the public's interest to know, say hypothetically in the US, if a presidential candidate, on a mission from God, corrupted a presidential vote to get into office after he is already in office? What is better -- knowing that the system is corruptible/flawed? Or having it stay secret so the public maintains faith in the electoral system and working behind the scenes to make sure it doesn't happen again (possibly successfully, possibly not).
Hypothetically, that is...*innocent look*...
linda
YES indeedy.
THAT sounds a lot like "State Sponsored Terrorism" to me!
RR
I found this article interesting, in that NZ courts don't record the trials. *IF* that is the case then the judge couldn't have known what the defendant was saying was true. Its just amazing that any court system could survive without recording what was said during the trial. I am not sure I would want to live in that environment. Frankly the judge could laterally get away with murder. I just find it to troublesome.
I have no way of verifying the truth and accuracy of Mr. Seimer's accusations against the accountant he is attacking, or against certain New Zealand judges, whose integrity and honesty he is also attacking, however, one fact alone suggests he may be more of a victim than a wrong-doer in this situation: For a Senior Law Officer of the national government to seek "indefinite imprisonment" [which sounds an awful lot like a life sentence], raises the spectre of totalitarianism and the rank arbitrary use of state power that such an "ism" normally implies. If such an extreme penalty can be invoked in New Zealand for merely thumbing one's nose at the state, it would not have been much more dangerous to live in the Soviet Union, Franco's Spain or Nazi Germany, than it is to live in New Zealand. On the other hand, it is not unheard of, even in Canada or Britain, for the courts in serious "contempt" cases to throw the person in contempt in jail UNTIL he purges his contempt, which in this case, would be to take down the web site. I would like to know a lot more about the facts and the meaning of "indefinite imprisonment" in NZ law before getting too worked up about this matter. Perhaps the term is just a quaint way of saying "Stay in jail until you comply with the order".
I metamodded your offtopic mod as unfair. You owe me.