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."

24 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 aussie_a · · Score: 5, Informative

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

    4. 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.
    5. Re:Free speech. by Admiral+Ag · · Score: 5, Funny

      The impossibility of New Zealand joining is mentioned by every New Zealander.

      --
      "by that I mean people who don't sit on slashdot all day wondering why everyone else isn't building robots" DECS
    6. 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.

    7. Re:Free speech. by NickHydroxide · · Score: 5, Informative

      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.

    8. Re:Free speech. by cyberchuck.nz · · Score: 5, Informative

      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?

    9. Re:Free speech. by Scannerman · · Score: 5, Funny

      Not strictly true. I have met a few New Zealanders who are reasonably sympathetic to the the idea of the West Island(s) joining, as long as they are governed from Wellington

    10. Re:Free speech. by settantta · · Score: 5, Funny

      Of course, what most commenters are missing is that there is a difference between Australia and New Zealand. The incident is in New Zealand, not Australia, so it is possible that their defamation law is different. Their thinking might be a bit wooly though :p) (The Aussies will get that one).

    11. Re:Free speech. by shimmyshimpson · · Score: 5, Funny

      Well, it's really a fait acompli anyway as half of NZ already reside at Manly. We put up with the silly "anti-oz" rantings that come from some of the kiwis, while kindly allowing huge numbers of them to flee their grim homeland and live here. Of course, it goes without saying that the only people heading the other way are some bored tourists off to NZ to look at the boiling mud....and the sheep. Every time you turn around in a large Oz city you see hordes of Nz'rs bouncing in pubs, or employed as furniture movers, and lots of lots of "Ah Bro?" going on.

    12. Re:Free speech. by Walkingshark · · Score: 5, Funny

      How did you know I was a member of Al Quaeda?! I bet that bastard Muhammed in accounting talked, right?

      --
      The world you experience is only a close approximation of reality.
  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. Re:Standard sentence for contempt of court by j1mmy · · Score: 5, Funny

      Great idea! Guys on death row should *definitely* wait until after being executed to appeal the sentence.

    4. Re:Standard sentence for contempt of court by JakartaDean · · Score: 5, Informative

      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.

      --
      The subject who is truly loyal to the Chief Magistrate will neither advise nor submit to arbitrary measures (Junius)
  3. Unfortunately by Nasajin · · Score: 5, Informative

    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...

  4. Kiwis are Un-American! by IntelliTubbie · · Score: 5, Funny

    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.

    1. Re:Kiwis are Un-American! by Doh! · · Score: 5, Funny

      New Zealand isn't part of the U.S., dumbass. It's part of Australia. I swear, they don't teach kids here in America anything these days...

  5. We should help this guy! by francisstp · · Score: 5, Funny

    Seriously, his website has got to be one of the ugliest around, even by 1996 standards.

  6. 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?

  7. 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.