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."

Comments

Unfortunately

[Nasajin]

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...

Re:Free speech.

[aussie_a]

In Australia it is. It has to be not only true, but in the public's interest to know it.

Re:Standard sentence for contempt of court

[JakartaDean]

A justice system that ignores basic inalienable rights by definition has no authority in that regard. Sadly we've allowed those in higher positions of power to abuse our liberties with little to no resistance.

Just as your right to swing your fist stops where it meets my nose, 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. Similarly, your right to continuously defame me in public is not an absolute right. If I ask a judge to tell you to stop, and perhaps seek damages through a libel suit, and he agrees, you stop. If he wants to consider the evidence further, but wants to avoid further damage to my reputation in the interim, he can and likely will ask you to stop for a while until the verdict is in. In other words, these are not 'inalienable' rights, if by that you mean they have no limits. Nowhere. Not in any jurisdiction you can think of, for many good reasons.

Further, if you had checked the site in question, you would read text like:

The catalyst for this site is a shady and morally bankrupt accountant named Michael Stiassny...

which is clearly defamatory, and therefore reasonable grounds for a suit and/or requesting a cease-and-desist order.

So... you can get off your high horse now. It doesn't fit here.

Re:Free speech.

[NickHydroxide]

I am talking about Australian law. To be fair, the defence used to require a discernible "public benefit" in some states only. Even then, this was only a statutory modification - at common law, truth was always an absolute defence.

Nowadays, in all Australian states, truth is an absolute defence.

E.g. Section 25 of the Defamation Act 2005 (NSW) - "It is a defence to the publication of defamatory matter if the defendant proves that the defamatory imputations carried by the matter of which the plaintiff complains are substantially true."

Australian Broadcasting Corporation v O'Neill
"[t]he defence of justification is made out by proof of truth of the defamatory imputations. Public benefit is no longer an element of the defence."

The other uniform Defamation Acts have the same provision.

Re:Free speech.

[cyberchuck.nz]

What are some of the differences that make the New Zealanders so reluctant to unify with Australia? /USian, not familiar with local customs or grievances

We're both pretty competitive in the sporting arena - we play rugby against eachother, along with South Africa on a yearly basis(see Tri-Nations Cup. My rustic memory of history tells me this eventuated from the end of WWI when our troops stopped in South Africa on their way home and started playing rugby there (but I could be wrong).
The same holds true for other sports - such as netball, cricket, etc

There's a few minor disputes over Australia claiming Pavlova (a dessert), Phar Lap (Race Horse) and Split Enz (Band) from us - it's not really a big thing at the end of the day, but I suppose it makes us feel better bringing up this petty stuff when we get caned in the rugby

Economically, Australia has a slightly better exchange rate than we do, with $1 (NZ) being equivalent to around 80c (Aus), give or take a fluctuation. Economics isn't my forte, so I'll stay out of this area, however every few years we get someone saying we should have a shared currency with Aussie. On that note, we didn't join the "War on Terror" (Australia did, however) - although we sent troops for peace keeping and to help rebuild the country

We do allow citizens visa-less entry into eachothers countries, we trade a fair bit with eachother and everything - so we are pretty friendly despite it all - So I guess if you wanted a small analogy, it's similar to the US/Canada thing?