Comments on: A blog in support of Whale Oil.

By: Hubby

Hubby — Mon, 28 Dec 2009 09:20:03 +0000

Hi PhilBee,
While Whale Oil may have flouted the spirit of the law, he wasn’t the first. That the identity of this person is so much common knowledge the PM admits in a TV interview to asking someone and finding out – illustrates how we all just take this as a joke.

The name suppression laws clearly don’t work as they should, which is very serious in itself when protecting victims and the innocent. Targeting Cameron in this manner, on Xmas eve, only illustrates how much the spirit and intent of the legal system is being flouted by people. Access to legal representation? Not causing undue stress to someone?, who is after all innocent until proven guilty.

This court summons worries me on so many levels. Everyone who knows the identify of the name suppressed should be presenting themselves at court as co-respondents – since they’re all (allegedly) guilty of the same ban.

Sometimes it does take a rebel to flout a daft law in order to get it changed.
Perhaps, and I’m being a little cynical here, those responsible for upholding the law know it takes a simple case with a motivated defendant to create a precedent and get things changed.
What Cameron did was the right thing, to expose the hypocrisy and lunacy of a law that doesn’t work, even if the law currently say he shouldn’t.

By: Avalon

Avalon — Mon, 28 Dec 2009 02:48:55 +0000

I guess whether its publicity seeking or not (um – arent all bloggers seeking some sort of publicity – we wouldnt blog otherwise – nor would we leave links to our blogs in comments ) – it ignores the point that there are an awful lot of people who should be joining him in court for breaking the same law, on the same issue. There are plenty of sites where the entertainer is named (and not just in pictures). They also break the law. Why do they not have summons?

But in the same way that the IAA says I am breaking the Immigration Advisors Licencing act if I give advice but someone posting on a forum isnt, for no other reason than I am a blogger and thus identifiable – the law is being applied with no view to justice or fairness.

Unfortunatley – because if I break the IALA I risk $100,000 in fines or 7 years in jail – I am not in a position to do the same as Cameron and break the law to make a point (if that is what he did). I wish I could

When the law is an ass – it needs to be changed. People do not need to be carted off to court for showing that the law is an ass. Its fixing the wrong problem – much as with the IAA. Meant to fix the problem of rip of Immigration agents – it instead gives them a Carte Blanche to carry on ripping people off, and makes it illegal for me to advise people not to use them.

I guess having seen the injustice in the IALA I’m looking at this from a slightly different perspective. I write my blog within the law – but there are plenty of people out there on the internet breaking the IALA and getting away with it simply because they dont own a blog. I think all blog writers need to take some notes here.

Sorry that was a bit longer than I thought it would be

Cheers

Helen

By: PhilBee, NZ

PhilBee, NZ — Mon, 28 Dec 2009 00:00:40 +0000

Not that I support these pictorially-outed people, but aren’t they innocent until proven guilty? When was WhaleOil given the right to scream “J’accuse!”?
If Cameron Slater wants a jolly joust with the judiciary, that’s his call – but as the law stands (outdated though it may be), he’s in the wrong…and he knows it. This feels awfully like publicity-seeking.

PhilBee, NZ

http://yardyyardyyardy.blogspot.com/2009/12/to-blog-or-not-to-blog-that-is-question.html