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.
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.
Read the rest of this entry »