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...
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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?
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.
intents and purposes, not intensive purposes... sorry pet peave
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
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?
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.