It has amused me immensely seeing people who should really know better rushing in like headless chooks to squark ‘freedom of speech’ and criticize a Judge who is saying Slater doesn’t deserve the legal protections of a Journalist.
So can someone actually explain to me what public interest was there in Slater attacking Matthew Blomfield and all the threats to Blomfield’s wife? How on earth exactly is Matthew Blomfield a public figure who deserves the vitriol and hate mongering Slater has spewed upon him? Why should Slater get protection of sources for this sewer dredging awfulness? Isn’t what Slater did here to Blomfield the VERY type of cyber bullying we are all so sick of?
It must come as a bit of a blow for those who have rushed to defend Slater (and there have been a disappointingly large number of you) to see the totality of the horror Slater is trying to pass off as journalism with Matthew Blomfield’s guest post on The Standard…
It was therefore a considerable shock to me to be directed to his blog site and to see the contents of my hard dive published therein. If Mr Slater had stuck to saying what he has in the last few days (with some exceptions), namely that I was a (now former) bankrupt and banned company director (I am now allowed to act as a director of the company I work for BTW) who took $3.5 m of other people’s (all institutions, no individuals) money with him when I went down, I could hardly complain.
Instead, he wrote a series of articles and published attendant comments which accused me of a series of crimes and then made disgusting and denigrating claims against my wife. As recently as Thursday this week she received anonymous text messages stating “Headhunters are waiting”. While the stories were running it was commonplace for her to receive updates of what atrocities were in store for her (all the detail is before the court and Slater knows it). His supporters then amused themselves with online hate speech. He mocked my attempts to reason with him. That is when I decided to sue him. I had no money and legal aid would hardly be appropriate even if it were available so I did it myself. He responded with a high profile law firm. Was I angry? He wasn’t just attacking me!
…how Slater got this hard drive, why he got the hard drive and the intent of the person who handed it over to do this hit job on Blomfield are all far larger questions that Slater’s right to protect his sources.
There is simply no public interest in Blomfield, he’s just a businessman who had a hard time, fell over and pulled himself up again. Why he needed this spiteful attack on him and his wife and how that can be called journalism by the aesthetic left seeking a moral high ground is a totally fabricated absurdity.
As I have pointed out several times, the quality of work a blogger produces should be the decider of whether they have protection of sources. If the blogger is using this privilege to hold the powerful to account using whistle blowers, then that is justified, if a blogger however seems to be on some bewildering hate quest to denigrate someone who it’s not actually clear deserves such attention then dammit, he don’t get no protections.
When I was heavied by the Police over the lost Corrections File, I point blank refused to disclose the source, but agreed to help return the files because I agreed with then Minister of Justice, Phill Goff, that if the file went public the prisoners faced zero chance of rehabilitation. The Police ended up catching the NZ Herald with the folder about to go to press with the sordid details. In that matter, not only did I stand up for my rights as a blogger to protect my source, but the blog was holding a higher ethical standard than the bloody mainstream media.
Where is the responsibility upon bloggers to use the new influences we have with the news media if rights like protection of sources will be squandered and wasted to protect bloggers from legitimate defamation cases?
If any of the left who have rushed to support Slater could just explain to the rest of us exactly what public interest was served by these blogs against Blomfield?
as one who has taken the stance you seemingly ridicule..
..i feel that the judges’ ruling on what constitutes ‘media’ is what this case is all about..
..these actors are not the main story..
..and the rights and wrongs in slaters’ attacks on blomfield will be settled with the slander case..surely..?
..i am puzzled that you start off referring to the judges’ ruling..
..but the rest of yr piece is detailing the bits and bobs of the slander case.
..is this not apples and oranges..?.
..i have not read slaters’ pieces on blomfield (nor on brown)..
..but i would reconfirm..that no matter how much i may dislike what slater wrote..(as i no doubt would..)
..i dislike this judge ruling that what he does is not ‘media’..even more..
..as what slater does most certainly is ‘media’…
..and just focusing on that for a ‘mo..how can you say he is not..?
..and i repeat..the slander laws are there to keep slater in line..
(hypothetical-scenario:..
..you are leaked some explosive info..you publish it..
..and you face jail for not giving up yr informant..
..’cos going on the slater-precedent..
..what you do does not constitute ‘media’..
..this is what you are arguing for..?
..really..?..)
phillip ure..
Someone hanging out at a hospital and knowing how to change a dressing does not make them a doctor imo
Hi Bomber.
I was one of them …
I expressed the view that the Judge was wrong to hold that Slater’s site was not a “news medium” because I was worried at the possible precedent value. I did have to have a shower afterwards! Supporting particular freedoms means that you have to support your enemies also having those freedoms …
I left open the question of whether Slater was a journalist. This is the second limb of the test for people wanting to protect the identity of sources. For confidentiality of a source to be respected not only does the site have to be classified as a news medium but Slater would also have to be considered a journalist. Slater’s cuteness with his income and the funding of stories could hurt. If he is not being paid then he is a hobbyist not a journalist and if he is getting paid then he is probably a lobbyist and not a journalist.
I agree that the Blomfield posts were shocking abuses of the right of free speech and I wish him well in his defamation case against Slater. But I am worried if the Judge’s ruling means the Standard and the Daily Blog cannot be considered to be news media and this is why I found myself in a rather unique position of agreeing with Slater about something.
And lprent disagrees with me!
Mickeysavage – the term “media” certainly applies to blogs, as “media” is such a wide-ranging cqategory.
I think where matters get murky is when Slater considers his sleazepit to be a “news” media, as is commonly considered part of the “msm”.
This suits Slater only because… it suits his current purpose.
If he could designate his blog a religion and claim relevant protections, he probably would.
If Slater wants to consider his blogsite a serious news media, that’s up to him. He can call it whatever he likes.
Whether or not the rest of society acknowledges that designation is another matter entirely.
In that case we need to look at the nature and intent of his blog, and in my ‘umble opionion he doesn’t cut the mustard. Mind you, neither does mine.
I had a long argu… i mean discussion with someone over the exact point you make. The Law quoted states that ‘journalists’ have protection, my point being is that Slater is not a journalist. My opponent then argued that Bomber & Russell Brown would then receive no protection as they were ‘bloggers’. Again i argued that Bomber would qualify as a journalist as he had a TV show, & Brown qualifies because he also has ‘mainstream’ means of news divestment (Hell, i used to listen to Russell Browns hard news on BFM before the internet even existed).
Slater is a blogger, first & foremost. He has no other outlets for his dribble. He is jus tlucky enough to have family connections to the Right, therefore he is sometimes lucky enough to get ‘scoops’. That still does not make him a journalist.
In conclusion, I agree with Mickysavage here, & Frank below, it comes down to the definition of journalist & how that title is applied….
Slater is no journo…. just a hatemonger with a keyboard & a well connected daddy…..
Edit – having just seen your comment on your blog, Frank, i must comment…..While your blog may not indeed qualify as ‘media’ you have (at least) one thing over Slater… your posts are all accurate (with links) you dont indulge in pure hate speech (even when justified), & you stick to vilifying actual public figures who are hurting the masses…. you dont just pick on people you dont like for no reason….
I liked your article Mickey Savage, because you were questioning the consequences of the judgement – I didn’t actually read you to be wholeheartedly supporting Slater’s website – simply questioning the consequences of the decision for others. Your article made me really think about the issue.
You are now sounding somewhat apologetic about the stance you may have been perceived to have taken and I really don’t think you should be.
I think that the problem with the judgement is that it wasn’t made clear on what grounds the judge thought Slater’s site wasn’t considered a news medium. It is very unclear whether the judgement was specific to the ‘nature’ of Slaters site or simply that it was a blogsite and therefore didn’t come under a ‘news medium’ on those grounds.
I think Slater does comment on the news alongside the misinformation and vitriol that he shares and it is very hard for me to agree that it can be flat out (without details) said it is not ‘sharing or commenting on the news to the public’ despite my very much disagreeing with the style that Slater chooses. It would have been a whole lot better for the rest of the internet blogging sites had the judge made it very clear on what grounds the site was not considered by him to be a news medium.
Alternatively the judge could have acknowledged WhaleOil’s site as a news medium yet still require Slater to release the information because that particular article breached journalistic standards.
Either of these two outcomes would have protected the rest of internet news sites from this massive grey area that has potentially been created by the undetailed nature of the judgement.
There are three issues at work here:
The first is whether bloggers have the same rights as journalists. A free speech issue.
The second is that Slater is a hideous oick and is rightfully being taken to court for accusing Mathew Blomfield of “a series of crimes” and making “disgusting and denigrating claims” against his wife. This is a libel issue.
The third is supposition on my part but I wonder if the judge is indulging in some judicial activism here by trying to tar all blogs with the Whale Oil brush.
The establishment would love to limit the power of blogs because they are often more effective at investigative journalism than conventional media seem to be. By creating this situation where all Blogs get tarred with the Whale Oil brush they can use it to limit the effectiveness of good blogs like this one (which I’m sure they would just love to do).
So yes, we should support the prosecution of Slater for writing libelous articles but we should defend his right (because it is every blogger’s right) to be treated as media. Two different things.
I’m not the expert on this though so I’m interested in other people’s views but I presume if the Whale Oil articles were printed in a newspaper there would still would have been a case to take to court.
Yes I agree with your supposition Aaron
On rereading the ruling:
“Whale Oil is a blog site. It is not a news medium within the definition of s68… of the Defamation Act. It is not a means for the dissemination to the public or a section of the public of news and observation on news.”
It appears that the Judge has actually ruled that because WhaleOil is a blogsite it is not a news medium. (Not that it is not a news medium because it doesn’t come up to certain standards). I think to rule that blogsites are not news mediums is entirely unreasonable and as you so astutely put it Slater could still have been prosecuted without ‘tarring all blogs with the Whale Oil brush’
This blogger happens to concur with your points, Bomber.
We keep hearing about “rights”. The right to free speech. The right to free media. The right to do this, that, or the other.
Nowhere do I hear about the other side of the Rights coin; responsibilities.
The media has certain responsibilities when it carries out its work. When will bloggers like Slater be responsible in his actions? Because as far as I can see, publishing details that identify the victims of sexual abuse is hardly an exercise in journalistic responsibility.
When Slater shows himself to be responsible, and not just a glorified hate-merchant of sleaze, then I’ll look at his “rights”. Until then, he is subject to the same defamation laws each and every one of us is also subject to.
The problem here is whether people are prepared to defend Slater, or not, in terms of freedom of speech, it is based on a definition of freedom of the press backed by bourgeois law which evolved to protect bourgeois property and persons.
For that reason the corporate media can get away with mass murder (e.g. inciting to war) and yet still act ‘responsibly’ protecting its ‘sources’ within the law.
Slater is many thousands times less dangerous than Rupert Murdoch when the latter is on the right side of the law. Who knows how many of Rupert’s ‘sources’ are secure yet dead?
What is Slater’s body count? Len is still in his job.
Murdoch is rich enough to buy the legislators, and even when he gets caught (or his employees do) he is rich enough to evade any real penalty.
So the idea that it’s best that Slater be outlawed, or inlawed, for the sake of all social media, is exactly that sort of legal storm in a teacup that the ruling class wants us to be pre-occupied with.
Any media which spends its time preoccupied with its legal rights is already on a ball and chain.
There is no abstract ‘freedom of the speech’, rather a conditional freedom defined by a state whose function is to protect and defend bourgeois property and persons from ‘subversion’, ‘terrorism’, ‘slander’ etc.,
Whatever you medium, if you seriously fuck with the state you can be sure it will come in your back door and fit you up with a free trip and a holiday in Pakistan, the Caribbean or Siberia.
A free media is one that is free of any state regulation where the people are capable of determining what is true or not. We won’t get there until we get rid of the state.
Judge Blackie used the phrase “defamation proceedings of this nature” . in decision. Reflexive circles ofmwagons understandable. But critics have not heard then whole case,. Some doing themselves no favours lumping themselves into same category
By the way, I’ve read every post here thus far and all are excellent in their points. Food for thought, and I find my opinions “evolving” on this issue.
Just a couple of things … I would call Whaleoil’s blog a news medium of sorts, and so I don’t quite support the judge’s position.
The protection of journalist’s sources however is a customary rather than a legal tradition. It is not as formal or as absolute as the responsibilities that protect legal or medical privileged information.
It is by no means unheard of for news media to be charged with defamation, and to refuse to give up sources that might have exonnerated them. Slater as a media enterprise may have to take that hit, to protect the sources of Slater the … ‘journalist’. The law does not protect them absolutely.
Stuart is right. Many of us journalists have been threatened to reveal our sources or face contempt proceedings and held in prison until those sources are coughed up.
Even I, over a matter in 2004-5, received a veiled threat from former Inspector General of Intelligence and Security, Justice Paul Neazor, reminding me that he had the power to rule me in contempt should I not reveal my sources. He then stated that he had chosen to confirm the identity of my sources through other means (which I took as being IDed via the SIS). So, thanks to his grace I was spared a lagg.
They wouldn’t dare, Selwyn…
Throwing a journo (a real one) into prison for not revealing a source would be a step too far…
One thought that occurs to me…
If Slater’s blog is “media” – what kind of media is it? And is it subject to the same rules of balance that, say, Radio NZ or Mediaworks is required to observe?
If it is, then Whaleoil is hardly the most balanced of publications in this country.
a tricky subject..that ‘balance’..
..the guardian is left..the daily mail is right..
..the daily show is left..fox news is right..
..the daily blog is left..
..the slater blog is right..
..where is the balance there..?
..it is what they do..not their ideological stance/positions..
..that determine if they are ‘media’ or not..
..and going by that definition/those examples..
..the slater blog is ‘media’..
..whether slater is a ‘journalist’ or not..
..is another/different question..
..phillip ure..
Are the “aesthetic left” the latest enemy to stand beside baby boomers?
FFS, we don’t have to take like WhaleSpew or stand beside him to not want to see the power of the bourgeois state extended. Left activism in general, and even the blogosphere in particular, are not a school playground where we have to be in with the right crowd and 100% against everything that Bomber doesn’t like. What’s more dangerous here? Is it a greasy slimeball who is holding onto stolen goods and will get his whether he’s media or not, or is it the capitalist judge getting his tools together to nail down the coffin lid on all blogs that someone in power doesn’t like?
Excellent comment, OV. Right on coin.
Comments are closed.