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."
It is ironic in NZ, that while we're a fairly liberal country, yet we also don't have our freedom of speech constitutionally protected to the same level as the United States, anyone with a big mouth could be silenced by someone who doesn't like it, that is exactly what has happened here - the whistle blower has been silenced by the big wig.
However, in NZ we exercise the freedom of speech we imagine we have without restraint, and if you ask anyone on the street in NZ they'd be surprised to learn we don't have such protection legally. Yet there are so few issues like this there's a corresponding lack of public outcry and push for a law change.
We're very quick to march on parliament (even riot as in 1981) over whatever political issue is the fancy of the week and to some extend our news media gets a kick out of cheer leading various issues almost to the point of sedition.
So it's dangerous that we still have law that is unfitting to the way we actually do things here. It's worse that this kind of thing is still enforced. I say good bloody on him for standing out for what he believes.
Oh yeah and f@@k the system etc etc...
he's in new zealand, he doesn't have a right to free speech. he wouldn't have one in australia either. no bill of rights. means that what rights we have is a kind of grey area (though freedom of religion, from memory, is guaranteed in australia) but also means people can't be idiots then hide behind said bill.
Kids! Bringing about Armageddon can be dangerous. Do not attempt it in your home!
You don't have the right to shout "FIRE!" in a crowded is one oft-quoted example.
Oft and stupidly quoted, considering that it was originally used to justify upholding a prison sentence for distributing anti-draft pamphlets. It really isn't going to be helping your argument to quote sources like *that*.
I presume they inherited their law from the UK, as a colony, and would recognise the 1689 Bill of Rights, guaranteeing free speech.
You can work for a good company and still have a dumb boss. They may have come from outside the organisation, having had an excellent interview but just aren't up to doing the job - not necessarily a fault of the selection process. Or they may have been promoted beyond their ability - admittedly that is more of a reflection on the employer. So you might not want to work for your boss but do want to work for your company.