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.
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....
Tell that to Ghandi.
If that's the best response you can come up with then I finally understand why people rail against the American education system.
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.
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.
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?
But what happens if the defendant is found guilty, but simply refuses to comply with the court's decision?
I find it hard to believe that someone can simply ignore a court order in the US and nothing will happen to him.
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.
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!
Does harm have to be measured in "economic loss" ? That's a pretty grim inditement of US society in itself.
Aide-toi, le Ciel t'aidera - Jeanne D'Arc.
Unh, I'm not studying law, and also, I'm not raging against the system. Furthermore, if someone is scantily clad, no matter what they've done, their dress sense shouldn't be the basis for deciding a court case. You're way off topic - grow up, and stop over-signifying the content of people's discussions.
The person can be jailed for contempt of court. The length of the jailing can be specified and/or limited by law and it can be at the discretion of the court, which can set a length of "until he complies with the order".
Case in point: A reporter was held in jail for two years for contempt of court for refusing to name a source.
There is no "-1 offended" or "-1 you don't agree with me" mod options for a reason.
Let me get this straight, you think that a society which allows people to sue other people because the other person hurt their feelings would be better?
If you mod me Overrated, you are admitting that you have no penis.