Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Indefinite Imprisonment For Web Site Content

Posted by kdawson on from the throwing-away-the-key dept.

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."

10 of 484 comments (clear)

  1. Free speech. by NoobixCube · · Score: 5, Insightful

    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
    1. Re:Free speech. by etymxris · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Slander and defamation are not crimes when what is said is true.

    2. Re:Free speech. by simcop2387 · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Slander and defamation are crimes, even when they're true (or rather, especially when they're true), so speech is never free. actually in the US (and i THINK many other countries) the truth is an absolute defense against defamation and slander, because both require that what was said be false in order to be either, the truth is not slander or defamation in the US (despite what many may want you to think)
    3. Re:Free speech. by Walkingshark · · Score: 5, Insightful

      It doesn't really matter which branch of the government is supressing his message, it still violates his right to free speech.

      --
      The world you experience is only a close approximation of reality.
    4. Re:Free speech. by htnprm · · Score: 5, Insightful

      If a court asks you to do something, doesn't it have to be legal, or have some basis of legality? A judge can't order you to go and kill someone. Nor I imagine, would a judge be able to tell you "to do something, because I told you so". Surely it would have to be "do something because of XYZ legal reason", which I think is the case there, and the legal reason XYZ in this case is in question.

      Knowing someone who has recently been in a full on, without a doubt, cut and dry case in their favour, it turns out the judge was a complete dick, took everything personally, and my friend, their solicitors and their expert witnesses are SHOCKED with a capital SHOCKED when not only did the verdict go in the complete oposite of what was expected, but they themselves were required to pay damages. Justice may be blind, but people involved with implementing justice are still human.

  2. Standard sentence for contempt of court by QuantumG · · Score: 5, Insightful

    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.
    1. Re:Standard sentence for contempt of court by wizardforce · · Score: 5, Insightful

      It's obvious you don't respect the authority of the court.
      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.
      --
      Sigs are too short to say anything truly profound so read the above post instead.
    2. Re:Standard sentence for contempt of court by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Doesn't matter what the press says. Doesn't matter what the politicians or the mobs say. Doesn't matter if the whole country decides that something wrong is something right. This nation was founded on one principle above all else: the requirement that we stand up for what we believe, no matter the odds or the consequences. When the mob and the press and the whole world tell you to move, your job is to plant yourself like a tree beside the river of truth, and tell the whole world - "No, you move." -Captain America.

  3. Simple: Obey the law by ESarge · · Score: 5, Insightful

    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?

  4. History would disagree. by copponex · · Score: 5, Insightful

    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.