http://www.stuff.co.nz/national/8801239/Biting-blog-given-last-post-using-stalker-law
With the proposed legislation to prevent on line stalking and bullying the above link shows the current laws are already adequate. It was only a few weeks ago that Judith Collins was taking credit for what would be leading edge legislation to deal with internet crime, yet the Law already provided that remedy in an decades old Act that was updated in the 1990s. During the period of which Judith Collins and others were talking about new laws on line stalkers were able to continue while their victims, if listening to the Minister, would have been entitled to think that there was no Law to deal with it and that they were helpless in the meantime. Reading the following it seems that Madeline Flanagan doesn't appreciate the current Law and believes that it won't open the floodgates.
http://nz.news.yahoo.com/a/-/top-stories/17625521/blogger-judgment-wont-open-flood-gates/
It's clear that Ms Flanagan doesn't appreciate that the Act used to prevent the harassment by Jacqueline Sperling is in fact user friendly and on the face of it more expedient than the proposed legislation. Not only has the prevarication on encouraging internet victims to use the current Law to protect themselves been unnecessary and harmful, it has also no doubt cost a small fortune to 'roll out' a 'new' Law. There is no reason to believe it will be more efficient than the existing Law that obviously Government Ministers and some Lawyers alike chose to ignore. Laws on harassment go back 100s of years, it didn't take new Law to adapt to a new age, rather understanding the current Law and precedent to apply it to the modern times. The difficulty in understanding that there is no difference between a word or words written in a letter or on the side of the house are no different from those written on Facebook or a internet message board site is really quite primitive. As it appears Trade Me have finally accepted when they settled with Joe karam last year. The traditional print media norms apply to the internet as Judge Harvey's judgement and others show.
Of personal interest to me where the apparent 'obstacles' I discovered in pursuing a similar route in recent years. Lawyers with years of experience were dubious about the Law being able to be applied, some even saying that it couldn't be applied. Also of personal interest was the fact that Judge Harvey, rightly in my opinion, awarded costs in the Sperling case, because Sperling had reached an agreement that she breached - something like a certain hate-site administrator I know of.
The chances are that Judith Collins will still roll out her 'new' Law and that time will prove the law which emerged over Centuries and through precedent and amendment will remain the best course despite it's neglect while some people confused themselves over what harassment actually is.
With the proposed legislation to prevent on line stalking and bullying the above link shows the current laws are already adequate. It was only a few weeks ago that Judith Collins was taking credit for what would be leading edge legislation to deal with internet crime, yet the Law already provided that remedy in an decades old Act that was updated in the 1990s. During the period of which Judith Collins and others were talking about new laws on line stalkers were able to continue while their victims, if listening to the Minister, would have been entitled to think that there was no Law to deal with it and that they were helpless in the meantime. Reading the following it seems that Madeline Flanagan doesn't appreciate the current Law and believes that it won't open the floodgates.
http://nz.news.yahoo.com/a/-/top-stories/17625521/blogger-judgment-wont-open-flood-gates/
It's clear that Ms Flanagan doesn't appreciate that the Act used to prevent the harassment by Jacqueline Sperling is in fact user friendly and on the face of it more expedient than the proposed legislation. Not only has the prevarication on encouraging internet victims to use the current Law to protect themselves been unnecessary and harmful, it has also no doubt cost a small fortune to 'roll out' a 'new' Law. There is no reason to believe it will be more efficient than the existing Law that obviously Government Ministers and some Lawyers alike chose to ignore. Laws on harassment go back 100s of years, it didn't take new Law to adapt to a new age, rather understanding the current Law and precedent to apply it to the modern times. The difficulty in understanding that there is no difference between a word or words written in a letter or on the side of the house are no different from those written on Facebook or a internet message board site is really quite primitive. As it appears Trade Me have finally accepted when they settled with Joe karam last year. The traditional print media norms apply to the internet as Judge Harvey's judgement and others show.
Of personal interest to me where the apparent 'obstacles' I discovered in pursuing a similar route in recent years. Lawyers with years of experience were dubious about the Law being able to be applied, some even saying that it couldn't be applied. Also of personal interest was the fact that Judge Harvey, rightly in my opinion, awarded costs in the Sperling case, because Sperling had reached an agreement that she breached - something like a certain hate-site administrator I know of.
The chances are that Judith Collins will still roll out her 'new' Law and that time will prove the law which emerged over Centuries and through precedent and amendment will remain the best course despite it's neglect while some people confused themselves over what harassment actually is.
She lifted the lid on a seemingly racy side to the blogosphere - spreading her accusations to a friend of Flannagan, Debbie Brown, outing her for an affair with Whale Oil blogger Cameron Slater.
ReplyDeleteNone of this is really worth worrying about surely. These people are all linked in a rather disturbing way. Collins I would have thought has let her self down by associating herself with the likes of Slater an individual with disturbing mental problems by his own admission. It seems to me to be right that these idiots bring each other down that the way things are for those people. Once lumped together is any thing they have to say or contribute worth diddly squat I say no let them take each other out. Its all so very incestuous.
I'm surprised Judith released the Binnie report in such quick time and after hours without realising the country would see through her campaign to apparently lie about, and be critical of, an International Jurist. There is something not only apparently odd about that, but which indicates rather than political ruthlessness and deceit - an arrogant naivety. Perhaps she shares the same 'difficulties' as her erstwhile 'friend' each complimenting the flaws of the other in what might prevail to be the 'Journey of a would be Prime Minister.'
ReplyDelete