I don’t think the Judge is suggesting all bloggers aren’t worthy of those protections, he’s saying Cameron Slater’s case isn’t.
Let’s remind ourselves again of what happened? Cameron, for reasons that were never clear, started to humiliate some bloke by publishing personal details Slater had been anonymously sent.
The spite that followed was Slater at his usual inglorious sewer plumbing best. The bloke was furious and took Slater to court to find out who the sources were for his defamation case. To afford Slater the legal protections of a journalist to not reveal his sources seems ludicrous in this case.
And this is hardly a new pattern of behavior is it? Remember when he was convicted of breaching a variety of name suppression orders? Remember when Slater published all the humiliating details of Len Brown’s affair in a cruel and vicious manner? Remember when Slater published the personal employment details of a wharf protestor? Remember when Slater posted a fake Green Party press release that inspired threats of violence against Russel Norman? Remember when Slater publicized a doctored interview with Jim Anderton edited into Anderton saying an earthquake would need to strike for him to lose the Christchurch mayoralty? Remember when Slater was wanting looters in Christchurch to be shot in the stomach so that the death would be slow and painful? Remember when he claimed Chris Carter’s mother who was dead for 12 years was still using a taxpayer cell phone?
If bloggers want the legal right to protect sources then they have to show a body of work that proves they have the ethical standards to claim those protections.
This is Cameron Slater’s body of work…
…a pus filled, decomposing rotted gasbag of exploding poison. Are we honestly wanting to expand protections that reward pus filled, decomposing rotted gasbags of exploding poison?
The day a wolf that cries boy like Cameron Slater becomes the standard bearer of free speech is the day we run out of speech that is free.