Baby herbal soup — A professor of philosophy fooled by the hoax

Important update

On 14 July Professor Thomas removed his post citing the Seoul Times, after I wrote to him pointing out that the baby herbal soup meme is a hoax.

I’d like to thank Professor Thomas for acting promptly on this matter.

EM
——————————————————-

I really thought that the whole “baby herbal soup” hoax had been put to death. I haven’t had to come back to this racist Internet meme for sometime, but unfortunately, I have discovered a rather alarming version of the story being repeated and used by a professor of philosophy from a respected American university.

Yes, that’s right, a professor of philosophy is relying on the fake and highly racist story that Chinese people eat aborted fetuses to make an argument about the morality of abortion.

According to his CV, Professor Laurence Thomas has been a tenured professor at Syracuse University since 1989. Indeed he is listed as faculty on the University website.

Professor Laurence Thomas has linked to the discredited Seoul Times article — only one version of the so-called “news” report — in order to attack what he dismissively describes as the “liberal” view of abortion.

Here’s just a small sample from this 2009 blog post:

Professor Laurence Thomas, Syracuse University

Animal flesh is eaten all the time; and since the human fetus is claimed by liberals not to be a person, then why cannot it not be eaten as a form of animal flesh? My raising this question is not an indication of my having become a morally demented individual.

Rather, I have raised the question because precisely what has been reported in the Seoul Times (9 June 2009) is that in China the human fetus is being served as a form of nourishment. The article claims that in China baby herbal soup is held to “increase overall health and stamina and the power of sexual performance in particular”.

Now, the observation that I wish to make is the liberals on abortion are in no position to criticize the practice in China of consuming the human fetus for food. Why? Because liberals on abortion insist that the fetus does not constitute a human being, and so has no moral standing at all as a human being. By this line of reasoning, eating a human fetus can be no more morally objectionable than eating dog or snake or horse or snails.

 

Professor Thomas has included one of the notorious images that often accompany the retelling of the hoax. I have pointed out before that these images are the work of Chinese performance artist Zhu Yu and are not evidence that Chinese people prepare and consume “baby herbal soup”.

I have posted a full list or URLs to previous Ethical Martini posts on this topic, you can read all about it there.

I have written to Professor Thomas asking that he either take down the post, or at least edit it to acknowledge that the Seoul Times story and other so-called “evidence” of the practice of eating babies are false and malicious.

If you visit the Moral Health blog where Professor Thomas writes his argument you will instantly see why it is important that this hoax be exposed at every opportunity. Idiots and racists of low intelligence (two overlapping but separate groups of dribblejaws and willful fools) jump on these expressions of the hoax to spout all kinds of filth about Chinese people.

 

 

Dear Professor Thomas,
I am writing in relation to a post you wrote on a blog called Moral Health

Real Baby Soup in China: Extending the Liberal View on Abortion?

The post uses an article from the Seoul Times as the basis for a long treatise on abortion and the “eating” of a human fetus.
While I have no quibble with you having strong views about abortion — indeed I hold similarly strong views myself on abortion and a number of topics — I do take issue with you using as your main source material a purported news article from an online source that has little or no credibility.

Your article generated a lot of responses and continues to garner hits and views. Indeed I was drawn to your post by a ping back to my own blog.
I believe that you should take down this post, or at least make several large edits to clarify the real situation.
The “baby herbal soup” meme is an internet hoax and as a professor of philosophy, I am sure you would not want to base an argument on a false premise.

I have been chasing down this internet hoax myself for the past six or more years and there is no credible source for the outrageous and frankly racist claim that Chinese people consume aborted fetuses.
You can follow my research and discussion from the following URLs.
https://ethicalmartini.wordpress.com/2008/06/03/baby-herbal-soup/
https://ethicalmartini.wordpress.com/2009/02/04/baby-herbal-soup-update/
https://ethicalmartini.wordpress.com/tag/baby-herbal-soup/
https://ethicalmartini.wordpress.com/2011/04/02/april-fools-continue-to-poison-the-web-baby-herbal-soup-redux/
https://ethicalmartini.wordpress.com/2009/10/21/baby-herbal-soup-the-internet-for-sick-fcks/

It would be helpful if you, as a respected academic, would join me in condemning this cruel hoax and you can start by examining the post you wrote and, as I suggest, take it down or edit it to acknowledge the hoax.

I hope you can find the time to respond to me, unlike the editors of the Seoul Times whose only response when I wrote to them was abuse.

Best wishes
Martin

I await Professor Thomas’ response. If you wish to join my call for Professor Thomas to take down or amend this blog post, you can contact him yourself via the following links:

Email: lthomas@maxwell.syr.edu
College of  Arts & Sciences,
Syracuse University
Syracuse, NY 13244
Phone: 315-443-5824
Phone: 315-443-2245

Conceptually Mr Slater, you’re done like a large oily whale

I have some personal sympathy for WhaleOil, he’s a fellow blogger and despite his sometimes wild and blunt accusations, he is doing what he believes in. I disagree profoundly with his right-wing politics, but I hate to see someone prosecuted for their opinions.

Having said that, I’m not at all surprised that Cameron Slater was today found guilty on eight charges of breaching suppression orders. He knows he did it; we know he did it and now Judge David Harvey in the Auckland District Court has found the police case proven and fined Cameron just under $8000.

He might call it a slap on the wrist with a wet bus ticket, but it’s nonetheless a hefty whack of cash.

While the guilty verdict is not surprising, what might be more curious is the reasoning and the implications in Judge Harvey’s decision.

For now I want to draw your attention to this paragraph:

Conceptually a blog is no different from any other form of mass media communication especially since it involves the internet which anyone who has an internet connection is able to access. It fulfils the concept of publishing and publication. It makes information available to a wider audience. That is why people blog. Although a blog may be no more than a personal diary or may contain expressions of opinion it is no different from a private citizen who gives an account together with his or her opinion of a court case including the name of a person who is subject to an order under s. 140 and posts it into private letterboxes or pastes it up on a billboard for all to see. It is publication. It is made to a wide audience. It goes beyond a private conversation over the telephone or, a coffee table or at a dinner party. It is the mass media element that accompanies the internet that places the blog within the same conceptual framework as any other form of mass media publication. Even if the blog were to be accessible by means of subscription with a login and a password it could well in my view be subject to the same constraints.

The idea that a blog is ‘conceptually’ ‘no different’ from ‘any other form of mass media communication’ is interesting and probably true on some levels. But on other, fundamental levels, it is very much ‘old media’ thinking.

Blogs are definitely not the same conceptually as the mass media – at least that is the view of the digital utopians and spruikers. It is certainly a live debate and it’s not settled yet.

Blogs were established as an alternative and counter to what many saw as the conservatism and ideological straight jacket that envelops the mainstream news system; so one could argue that conceptually they are very different beasts.

Take this alternative conception as one example. It’s from New York professor of media Clay Shirky. He’s a spruiker and I don’t always agree with him, but this is a good statement of the differences in conceptualising of blogs and other user-generated media:

[The] ability to speak publicly and to pool our capabilities is so different from what we’re used to that we have to rethink the basic concept of meda: its not just something we consume, it’s something we use.. As a result, many of our previously stable concepts about media are now coming unglued.

Shirky, C. (2010). Cognitive Surplus: Creativity and generosity in a connected age. New York: The Penguin Press. Clay‘s blogs

I know Cameron Slater sees himself on the front lines of those ungluing these previously stable concepts, but I’m not sure he’s on the right track here.

The key element in today’s decision is that for all intents and purposes blogs and bloggers are subject to the same legal constraints as the MSM – at least when it comes to issues such as what’s in the Crimes Act. Name suppression is covered by s139 and s140 of the Act and in Cameron’s case have been held to be absolutely applicable.

I’m not sure any other decision was really possible in this case. If you want to act like the media and have your say then I suppose to some degree you have to play by the rules. The judgment probably puts a little more pressure on the government to respond to the Law Commission report on regulation of the Internet, but it is not IMHO really out of the park in terms of reasonableness (based on what the law actually  is).

Judge Harvey obviously takes his role very seriously; he’s delivered a 70 page judgment that is going to take some careful analysis over the next few days and weeks.

You can view the judgment Police v Slater on Scribd

It is probably too early to tell, but today’s judgment could perhaps have a chilling effect on whatever passes for freedom of expression in the blogosphere; or it could just add the the vast piles of paper and PDFs in circulation.

There’s a good summary of the judge’s comments in court today on Stuff.co.nz and a later story from the NZ Herald which suggests Slater may appeal on the advice of his lawyer.

This line from Judge Harvey is also significant, in relation to Slater’s claim that the server for his blog is in the USA:

publication of information takes place where the material is downloaded and comprehended

This seems straightforward and it is consistent with the landmark case in this area; the famous Joe Guttnick decision in the Victorian Supreme Court and on appeal to the Australian High Court. In fact, Judge Harvey referred directly to this judgment in his ruling. He went on to write:

The reality of the situation therefore is that Mr Slater’s blog is available free of charge to internet users in New Zealand who may and do access it from time to time and therefore publication takes place in New Zealand.

Fair cop, I’d say…unfortunately for Mr Slater. He may appeal, but that could be costly too.

Slater’s defence seemed to rely on semantics to some degree, but when it comes down to a legal argument based on dictionary definitions (no matter how varied), it’s not much of an argument. In this case a report or an account was held to be any form or narrative and commentary or opinion, not necessarily a direct report of events in court.

Without wishing to engage in a battle of the Dictionaries, the online version of the authoritative Oxford English Dictionary gives the noun account as its 16th meaning. A particular statement or narrative of an event or thing; a relation, report, or description and report.

The erudite Judge Harvey seems to have one the battle of the dictionaries, after all, it is his courtroom: No trumping the judge!

The Judge also made an interesting aside in relation to the Bill of Rights and limitations to the freedom of expression. It should come as no surprise that there are limits to freedom of expression and that not breaching suppression orders is one of them:

My conclusion is that the limitation is indeed justified. It is quite clear both from a reading of the Bill of Rights Act, the authorities that have been cited and indeed the underlying provisions of the International Convention on Civil and Political rights that the rights are not absolute and are subject to restrictions based on other rights which must be taken into account.

Yep, that’s what the legal system’s for. It’s a system and therefore it has checks and balances and always a loophole that allows the system to protect itself from unreasonable challenges based on vague documents and sentiments like a Bill of Rights.

Finally, what about the idea that Whaleoil is a crusader for the rights of victims? This notion is based on the premise that the suppression laws to which he objects are themselves misguided or wrong. According to this logic, Cameron Slater is a crusader using civil disobedience against an unjust law (see comment from Chris Gale below).

But, are the suppression laws actually unjust? Do they really ‘protect’ criminals? Well no, they don’t. Under s139 suppression is related to the protection of victims of sexual crimes, there are other provisions under s140 about hardship and justice.

The idea that the laws protect criminals only exists within the context of punishment as revenge and is a form of vigilantism that is misguided and ultimately dangerous. The ‘stupidity of the horde’ is one way of looking at it. It is populist and dangerous and ultimately a threat to democracy, not a path to righteous peoples’ power.

Whale-watching: gathering storm clouds?

I’m a bit under-capacitated at the moment, here’s today’s links with brief comments.

JamesMurray’s blog at TV3, sustains an argument that the method not the purpose is the problem with Whale’s crusade:

To some degree Whaleoil has a point – name suppression laws, which were last reviewed in 1985, are hideously out-of-date in a society where we can all become publishers of content at the push of a button.

And it seems distasteful, at the very least, that a well-known entertainer should receive permanent name suppression for a sexual assault where revealing his identity might harm his career in a disproportionate manner.

This is not a luxury that would be afforded to someone not in the public eye. It is a double standard that needs to be rectified. There may be an argument that we need to protect celebrities or other well known people from undue media scrutiny in cases like these, but that argument is squashed by the need for a justice system that treats each man as an equal.

My problem with Whaleoil is not his idea but his method.

Views on news: Coward’s way

The question is just how out-of-date are suppression rules? I don’t think we can assume they don’t apply to bloggers as well as MSM publishing ventures.

Second, the rules talk about hardship to victims of crime (including the perps) and the Law Commission’s recommendations include amending this to undue hardship”. One could argue that loss of income is hardship.

Third, why are we so caught up on revenge and the punishment of shame?

The Dom Post‘s editorial has a bit both ways:

Slater is on a mission. He has said, outside the courtroom, that he believes everyone should be equal before the law, that celebrities and the wealthy have their identities suppressed more often and more easily than do ordinary Kiwis, and that the law needs changing.

The Dominion Post agrees. But there are better ways to lobby for a more open court system than by putting at risk the future of a teenage girl.

At times of egregious breach, the solicitor-general has been keen to go after those in the mainstream media who have broken suppression orders or otherwise committed contempt of court.

Either everyone who breaches this law is prosecuted, or no-one is. And were the latter to become the reality, those sections of the Criminal Justice Act pertaining to suppression orders need to be repealed.

Dom Post: …take notice

Media law academic Steve Price provides some welcome legal context:

Why are they picking on Mr Oil? Well, whereas the media pay lip service to the suppression orders and laws, Mr Oil rather thumbs his nose at them. Also, I’m guessing the police may well be using Mr Oil as a test case to send a message to others. I don’t like that practice much, but again, they’re within their rights, and it’s no defence for Mr Oil to complain that he’s been singled out. The Solicitor-General has done that with contempt prosecutions fairly regularly…

For those who think it’s discriminatory to give suppression orders to celebrities but not oiks like us, consider this: if you got prosecuted for weeing behind a pub, the media wouldn’t be interested. If it was an All Black, it would be front-page news. Those are the effects of a judge opting not to impose a name suppression order. Isn’t there a decent argument that that would be discriminatory too, and that name suppression merely irons out the discrepancy? (Not saying I buy that entirely, just that the issue’s a bit more complicated than some people suggest.)

Media Law Journal: Whale of a campaign

There was another name suppressed today. The alleged cop-shooter on attempted murder charges in Manukau District Court.

There may be a gathering storm…

When the Police charged me to “set an exam­ple” they picked the wrong per­son. If they wanted a sac­ri­fi­cial lamb they should have picked a lefty, they would have lain down and said fuck me in the arse because I like it and I’ll say sorry after­wards and pay a fine, I should have been more sub­servient, and doff their caps to the estab­lish­ment as they left court. But then lefty weak­lings never test the edge unless it is in favour of peo­ple like Pol Pot or Hamas.

Whaleoil: Sanctimonious, unctous twat alert.

A pithy and pungent attack on Whale’s political foes and those who question his purpose.

Mr Slater isn’t prepared to allow the process of legislative reform take its course. You see, he already knows what needs done, and knows that he is just the person to bring about these needed changes. So he’s started “outing” the names of individuals where these have been suppressed by the courts, on the basis that people want to know them and so he’ll tell them. And anyway, why should criminal scum get to hide from the righteous wrath of the mobilised mob?

Pundit: Wonky jihad #2.

An object of Whale’s substantial scorn, but raising serious issues about suppression & blogger “justice”

Cameron will find out in due course, whether or not that is seen to identify the ex-MP with name supression, but if they do prosecute the Whale, the question has to be asked whether newspapers should be charged also?

The man’s name was suppressed when he appeared in the Nelson District Court on Thursday.

A Sunday newspaper published details about the man, which Slater said had narrowed the field of possible accused to three.

He wanted to clarify who the accused was so the other two men were not unfairly accused.

Now I am not gunning for the Herald on Sunday. But I would say that far more people worked out from their story, who the accussed is, than the handful of people who were capable of working out the code Cameron had used, and reverse engineering it into hexadecimal and finally the  alphabet.

Kiwiblog: Who made it easier?

Has the HoS breached?

I don’t believe that Cameron Slater is giving power to the victims in these cases, nor do I believe that is his intention, although it might be a justification he is using now. I think he is trying to build power for himself. And that’s a cynical abuse of very real situtations for actual real people.

The hand mirror:  Cameron Slater please stop.

Victims of sexual violence could be the losers here

Prick seems to think he could put this child’s identity into the public arena with his stupid coded message and get away with it. (Don’t fool yourselves, pathetic righties. The identity of the alleged assailant will have identified the victim to those who know them). He actually said the Police should have better things to do than nab him for his blatant, unrepentant crime. He thinks he has the right to add to the suffering of sex victims to get himself some more airtime. (Congrats, btw, to news outlets that are refusing to name his blog and its URL).

The Standard: Scumbag Slater.

Dishing & taking the shitstorm, vitriol all’round

We think that Whale is bloody brave, but in this incident the victim could be a family member and if that is the case we can see some justification for suppression.

However, we have also read the post of Lisa Lewis today, who writes about being abused at a young age and wished that at the time the name of the perpetrator was made public.

Its clear to see that this debate will continue for some time and its a hot issue – Gotcha – Whales website has crashed and our site is getting many hits searching for anything we have published on the MP who is alleged to have been charged with sex offences.

RoarPrwan: Whale’s dork.

Fence-sitting, fame by association

Lets put that into perspective for a minute.

If every blogger in New Zealand posted the man’s identity in the headline of a post, and nothing else on the post. Would that breach suppression? Would the Police charge every blogger who posted his name in the headline and nothing else in the post?

Because if even 20 blogs did it that is an awful lot of police work required.

Where is the link?

That link would be formed by the MSM who post their own stories such as this one.

In isolation Whaleoil’s post meant absolutely nothing. Others have simply decoded it and then wrote their own stories in relation to linking it back to the details released at the weekend. Some haven’t even bothered to decode it at all and have just jumped up and down saying Whaleoil has breached the suppression order.

Cactus Kate: You can’t suppress a whale

An offshore perspective.

Whale is unrepentant and determined to continue making his points. He’s inviting legal retaliation and seems to be relishing the fight.

Thanks to his binary code stunt, it seems many more people are aware of the identity of the former MP who’s now an alledged sex offender.

The issues are becoming a little clearer and it seems that a perceived double standard is at the centre…

Do high-profile defendants get preferential treatment in name suppression?

Can a blogger be charged/convicted for a breach in the same way as the MSM?

How will the government react to the pressure for change & what will happen to the Law Cnnission report?

Whale-watching: Always take the weather (with you)

I really don’t know why Cameron Slater (aka Whaleoil) wants to take on the NZ legal system, but my advice to the balls out blogger comes in two parts:

1. Shut-up
2. Get a good lawyer

?The first part is easy. Cameron, no matter how much you believe in your anti-name suppression crusade, you are making things worse for yourself by tricks like this:

Police will investigate a blogger for revealing the identity of a former politician accused of an indecent assault on a 13-year-old girl.

Cameron Slater yesterday outed the former MP from the top of the South Island by naming him in a binary code on his blog.

[NZ Herald, 12.01.10]

In a post yesterday Whaleoil said the binary code doesn’t breach name suppression orders:

1. Firstly I did not defy name sup­pres­sion laws. I cat­e­gor­i­cally deny I did any such thing. I sim­ply posted some Binary Code with a Base64 Title. None of which iden­ti­fies by name, address or occu­pa­tion “in any account or report relat­ing to any proceedings”
2. The “binary code which, when con­verted”, does NOT reveals the iden­tity of a defendant.

The link in 2. is to a TV3 piece that claims the code does reveal details likely to identify someone subject to name suppression

When converted, the computer coding in today’s post reveals the name of a national figure charged with the indecent assault of a girl aged between 12 and 16.

3news.co.nz had the code analysed by one of our programmers, who confirmed it indeed does reveal the name of the accused and his former role.

Court documents show it is alleged the man touched the girl’s breasts and genitals on December 30, 2009.

[Blogger investigated

Mocks suppression laws]

I don’t know if the code does or doesn’t translate, but both Fairfax and TV3 are reporting that they cracked it.

There’s more coded text on Whaleoil’s blog and I sadly think that this cat&mouse game is a sign that something is wrong.

It seems clear to me that Mr Slater needs some solid and effective legal advice. Maybe he’s getting it and he knows what he’s doing. Or it’s Don Quixote territory.

I’m also not sure Cameron is all that clear about his own motives. He seems naively surprised that his actions have attracted police and media attention.

Slater said he had received many supportive messages from victims of sexual abuse, saying they wished they were able to name their abusers.

And he said he did not name the former politician to attract publicity.

“People say that I’m publicity-seeking but I’m not,” Slater said.

“I didn’t seek for the police to charge me and I didn’t seek for you guys to publish about it.”

[NZ Herald, 12.01.10]

I don’t know what he expected then.  Of course there’s interest. After Cameron’s 1st legal outing last week, any further development was always going to get attention.

The root cause of this binary charade is that Cameron Slater doesn’t like the legal niceties that allow some defendants and convicted criminals to have their identity suppressed by the courts. He has repeatedly said so on his blog. This recent example pretty much sums up Whaleoil’s position:

All the hush-hush that comes with name sup­pres­sion in cases like this [sexual assault of a minor] is sup­posed to be for the ben­e­fit of the vic­tim. the thing is no-one ever asks a vic­tim what they think about it usu­ally because they are too young at the time. This allows the kiddy-fiddlers to get way with it for so long.

Right now one of the cases that I am alleged to have named both the vic­tim and the accused (”The Olympian”) and the case of the “Come­dian”, both of these fel­lows have been ordered to stay away from the com­plainant and in one case ordered to stay away from young chil­dren. The ex-MP with name sup­pres­sion is in the same boat. The thing is this. If we can’t be allowed to know who it is that should stay away from var­i­ous sit­u­a­tions or peo­ple then how can they be reported for breach­ing the court instruc­tion because we aren’t allowed to know who they are in the first place. There­fore we run a real risk of there being more vic­tims, espe­cially as they are all out on bail. If they were known then they would effec­tively be under house arrest as they sure as hell wouldn’t show their faces anywhere.

[Gotcha 12/01/10]

There might seem some logic here, but it is fatally flawed. In these cases, there is an accused and these person’s have a right to the presumption of innocence until the legal system says otherwise. I think the cops have got it right on this one.

“Clearly it attacks the very heart of our criminal justice system in a number of ways; that a person is entitled to presumption of innocence until the opposite is proven, the right to a fair trial, and in this case the breach of that order has the potential to identify the victim – the very reason the order was imposed.”

Mr Winter said he would be liaising with police in Auckland over the previous breaches as well as speaking to a crown solicitor and the judge who issued the suppression order.

“He’s certainly testing the boundaries of the law which doesn’t adequately cover the use or abuse of the internet, so there’s grey areas in both domestic and international law,” he said.

[Nelson Bays police area commander Detective Inspector John Winter @ Stuff.co.nz]

When media outlets get involved in trying cases before the courts they overstep the mark. We call it “trial by media”.

It is not up to Cameron Slater, the Weekend Truth, or anyone else ; either private individual, or media outlet, to prejudge the issues in these cases.

I wrote last week on the emotional pull of vigilantism in sex cases, we clearly see that here.

Bloggers and tabloid media want to be judge, jury and executioner.

I have more to say on this but I’m painfully pecking with one hand due to a large cast on my left arm. More later.

Whale(b)oil Slater hooked?

I have no beef with Whaleoil, but I am interested in his ongoing court case.

Blogger Cameron Slater (aka Whaleoil) has got himself into a bit of legal trouble and inadvertently made himself bottomfeeder food for the “repeaters” of the “Lame Stream” media that he so detests.

Even so, one gets the impression that Whaleoil is actually enjoying his 15 minutes of notoriety.

My impres­sion of the court sys­tem for peo­ple on first appear­ance is that it was about as organ­ised as a free for all piss up at a South Auck­land pub on Fri­day night.

Then I went down stairs and was met by about 30 repeaters and cam­era guys and photographers.

Here is the results of all that.

NZ Her­ald

New­stalkZB

TV3

TVNZ

Stuff (Video at stuff)

Eat that Far­rar, Every news chan­nel is cov­ered includ­ing NZPA which I don’t have access to. I don’t think this is going the way it was sup­posed to.

His brief appearance on a handful of charges in Auckland today (Tuesday 5 Jan) was ironically in courtroom adjacent to that in which yet another entertainer (loosely-defined) was remanded on child sex charges.

Although I can’t help won­der­ing if it is pure coin­ci­dence that I appeared the very same day as the “Come­dian” also appeared. Part of me thinks that was a stitch up.  [Court @ gotcha…]

So far Mr Slater has repeatedly said he will defend the charges that he breached a number of suppression orders and published information that might tend to identify a person with name suppression. The charges refer to two cases: one that was recently before the courts involving an “entertainer” who successfully argued for name suppression on the grounds that his earning capacity might be affected adversely if he was named. The second case is current and involves a former New Zealand Olympian who is facing serious charges of assault and sexual assault.

In both cases Whaleoil identified the men who have name suppression using a series of pictorial images to stand in for their names. In the case of the entertainer (who copped a guilty plea and got off with a warning) even PM John Key claims to know the name; so there seems little point in continuing the charade that the name’s suppressed. However, it is permanently suppressed, which is lucky for the guy, but not so lucky for his victim.

In the second case, as I understand it, the pictogram was a little harder to decipher. However, on the face of it, an offence may have occurred. If you look at the relevant sections of the law, it seems fairly clear cut.

As I read it, in cases involving a victim of sexual assault, publication of details that might identify the person – even the name of the accused – can be suppressed. In the entertainer case this was not the reason, but in the ongoing case of the Olympian it appears to be the reason for suppression.

Big News apology – Salient editor admits mistakes

Good news. The legal action threatened against Wellington-based blogger Dave Crampton for alleged defamation has been dropped.

Dave has posted the details, so I won’t repeat them here.

However, EM wants to make it clear that the original “suspect” in this matter, Mr Michael Oliver, was not the person responsible for the spam attacks on Dave’s blog. The spamming did occur in the Salient offices and a Salient volunteer has admitted to doing it.

I have also decided to place a note my previous posts on this issue to make this clear.

Previous EM posts

28 April: Legal letter freaks Big News

22 April: Someone’s lawyer might be interested in this

Legal letter freaks Big News – should the Internet be “Adults Only”?

A week ago I mentioned an interesting little blogwar breaking out in Wellington, now the skirmish has gone nuclear with one protagonist sending a lawyer’s letter to Dave Crampton host of  the Big News blog.

The row started when someone began to spam a Big News post suggesting that the media now back-off in the Tony Veitch case. Whoever the spammer was posted something like  40 comments in less than half-an-hour. The spammer used the names of Tony Veitch, Zoe Halford, Glenda Hughes, TV3 producer Carol Hirschfeld, Sailent editor Jackson Wood, big News host Dave Crampton and TVNZ’s Mark Sainsbury to put offensive and stupid comments into the post thread.

Now it’s come down to a threat of legal action. A threat that could have serious consequences for the blogosphere in Aotearoa/New Zealand.

Someone’s lawyer might be interested in this

[28 April update Legal letter freaks out Big News]

I’ve just been to Big News and there’s a very interesting post that I reckon a couple of legal eagles might like to take a look at.

It seems that someone’s been a very naughty boy – and totally stupid to boot.

Someone has been posing as a number of senior New Zealand journalists to post comments on a Big News blog item and, apart from being very peurile, it strikes me as possibly worthy of a legal challenge.

Big News names the culprit as a student journo at Victoria University in Wellington. Michael Oliver is the news editor of the Vic Uni student mag, Salient.

[30 April update:

Big News wrote: I can now reveal that those comments on this blog were done in the offices of Salient, and a Salient volunteer has taken the rap. I doubt whether this volunteer was alone. I was advised today, after being threatened with a defamation suit by the Victoria University Student’s Association(VUWSA) two days earlier, that current editor Jackson Wood was “aware of it” and knew “who is responsible” after initially writing to me denying any knowledge of the spamming.]

If I was Mark Sainsbury, or Carol Hirschfeld,  or Tony Veitch, or Zoe Halford, or Mike McRoberts, or Glenda Hughes, or Dave’s mum, I’d want to take the jerk who did this outside for a quite talk and a noisy thumping. Or maybe I’d just sue the arse of the little turd who is responsible. You can view his/her handiwork on this post at Big News

Bloggers and Journalists: Friends or Foes? : CyberJournalist.net

Bloggers and Journalists: Friends or Foes? : CyberJournalist.net

Audio and video of the blogging panel from this year’s Society of Professional Journalists Convention:

Legal action against bloggers has skyrocketed during the past three years. While some cases have merit, most are lawsuits designed to suppress free speech. Meanwhile, journalists have sought to differentiate themselves from bloggers through self-regulation and legislation. But should they? As new organizations have begun to embrace blogs and user-generated content, the “blogging v. journalism” debate has begun to dissolve, replaced instead by a greater awareness that what threatens bloggers today may well threaten professional journalists tomorrow.

— Watch video (67.2 MB, 33:34)
— Listen to or download audio

media ethics, journalism

Free Burma! – International Bloggers’ Day for Burma on the 4th of October 2007

Free Burma! – International Bloggers’ Day for Burma on the 4th of October 2007

This is a useful way to make blogging worth something.

You can also get up-to-date information from Burma at this blogspot spot

media ethics, journalism