Indefinite Imprisonment For Web Site Content

Suriken writes "In an unprecedented move, the New Zealand Solicitor General is seeking an indefinite prison sentence against American businessman Vince Siemer for alleged breach of an interim gag order now more than three years old. Siemer was jailed for six weeks last year for refusing to take down a Web site accusing the chairman of an energy company of suspect business practices. Because he still refuses to take down the site, NZ Solicitor-General David Collins QC wants to lock up Siemer indefinitely, merely for asserting his own free speech. From the article: 'Siemer's [defense] claims the Solicitor General's action is barred by double jeopardy. He also maintains he had long ago proven in Court that the injunction was incorrect in fact and law but that the judge simply ignored the law and evidence. He says the gag order violates his freedom of expression guarantees in these circumstances.' Here's more coverage from an NZ television station."

Free speech.

[NoobixCube (1133473)]

I like the idea that I have free speech, but it's nothing but a nice sentiment. Free speech is a right, but I can't enforce it. Slander and defamation are crimes, even when they're true (or rather, especially when they're true), so speech is never free. As long as you can be sued for slander, you don't have free speech. I could go on with a rant about everything wrong with the world, specifically Australia, and our legal system, but I'll stop before I do that...

Re:Free speech.

[etymxris (121288)]

Slander and defamation are not crimes when what is said is true.

Re:Free speech.

[aussie_a (778472)]

In Australia it is. It has to be not only true, but in the public's interest to know it.

Different in the USA

[tjstork (137384)]

In the USA, the burden is on the person supposedly being slandered to prove that they were actually slandered. Usually, this means that one has to show some sort of an actual economic loss caused by the speech AND, that the speech has to be untrue. Even with all of that, its still pretty hard to actually prevail in court and there's been some pretty famous cases where the media has won. That doesn't mean that we should drop our diligence against those who would claim liability as an excuse to censor, but it does mean that despite the admittedly awful example of domestic security legislation set by the USA, there are still some areas where we are doing ok.

Re:Different in the USA

[h4rm0ny (722443)]

Does harm have to be measured in "economic loss" ? That's a pretty grim inditement of US society in itself.

Re:Free speech.

[dcam (615646)]

Minor clarification. Legally speaking it is libel/slander if it lowers the opinion of the other person.

However it is not actionable unless it is both true and in the public interest.

INANL.

Re:Free speech.

[NickHydroxide (870424)]

I am talking about Australian law. To be fair, the defence used to require a discernible "public benefit" in some states only. Even then, this was only a statutory modification - at common law, truth was always an absolute defence.

Nowadays, in all Australian states, truth is an absolute defence.

E.g. Section 25 of the Defamation Act 2005 (NSW) - "It is a defence to the publication of defamatory matter if the defendant proves that the defamatory imputations carried by the matter of which the plaintiff complains are substantially true."

Australian Broadcasting Corporation v O'Neill
"[t]he defence of justification is made out by proof of truth of the defamatory imputations. Public benefit is no longer an element of the defence."

The other uniform Defamation Acts have the same provision.

Re:Free speech.

[settantta (577302)]

Of course, what most commenters are missing is that there is a difference between Australia and New Zealand. The incident is in New Zealand, not Australia, so it is possible that their defamation law is different. Their thinking might be a bit wooly though :p) (The Aussies will get that one).

Re:Free speech.

[Zouden (232738)]

Not in all jurisdictions.

But in any case, that's not what he's being jailed for. He's in contempt for denying a court order.

Re:Free speech.

[Walkingshark (711886)]

It doesn't really matter which branch of the government is supressing his message, it still violates his right to free speech.

Re:Free speech.

[H0D_G (894033)]

he's in new zealand, he doesn't have a right to free speech. he wouldn't have one in australia either. no bill of rights. means that what rights we have is a kind of grey area (though freedom of religion, from memory, is guaranteed in australia) but also means people can't be idiots then hide behind said bill.

Re:Free speech.

[Tony Hoyle (11698)]

I presume they inherited their law from the UK, as a colony, and would recognise the 1689 Bill of Rights, guaranteeing free speech.

Re:Free speech.

[Walkingshark (711886)]

How did you know I was a member of Al Quaeda?! I bet that bastard Muhammed in accounting talked, right?

Re:Free speech.

[Half a dent (952274)]

You can work for a good company and still have a dumb boss. They may have come from outside the organisation, having had an excellent interview but just aren't up to doing the job - not necessarily a fault of the selection process. Or they may have been promoted beyond their ability - admittedly that is more of a reflection on the employer. So you might not want to work for your boss but do want to work for your company.

Re:Free speech.

[Petrushka (815171)]

Indeed. I don't have a big problem with someone being penalised for violating a court order, as that's what courts are for -- to put their foot down w.r.t. interpreting the law; then if someone violates that interpretation, it's again the courts' job to tell them off.

However, while violating court orders is ipso facto a crime, I also think (1) court gag orders should be a hell of a lot rarer than they are -- there have been an awful lot of them in NZ court cases in recent years; that's a fault with the courts, though, not with the law; (2) imprisonment seems excessive (without knowing the details of the case -- yet); and (3) indefinite imprisonment is simply ludicrous and kind of pathetic. What's wrong with simply confiscating the tools used to commit the crime, or whatever other recourse is usual in other countries? Maybe NZ law doesn't actually allow for that, which wouldn't surprise me (there seem to be lots of loopholes in NZ law).

-- yours etc., an NZer

Slander and defamation -- definition

[sunbird (96442)]

Slander and defamation, by definition, require a false statement of fact causing harm to the aggrieved party. Slander is for verbal statements, whereas libel refers to written statements. See slander - wikipedia [wikipedia.org].
And, at least in the US, slander and defamation are not crimes. Rather, they are civil remedies (a tort [wikipedia.org]) enforceable not by the state through prosecution, but by the aggrieved individual bringing suit.

Re:Free speech.

[History's Coming To (1059484)]

This isn't free speech - it's a simple case of contempt of court. A court told him to do something. He refused. He's in contempt. Good grief Slashdot, where do I send my geek license, it's starting to embarrass me...

Re:Free speech.

[htnprm (176191)]

If a court asks you to do something, doesn't it have to be legal, or have some basis of legality? A judge can't order you to go and kill someone. Nor I imagine, would a judge be able to tell you "to do something, because I told you so". Surely it would have to be "do something because of XYZ legal reason", which I think is the case there, and the legal reason XYZ in this case is in question.

Knowing someone who has recently been in a full on, without a doubt, cut and dry case in their favour, it turns out the judge was a complete dick, took everything personally, and my friend, their solicitors and their expert witnesses are SHOCKED with a capital SHOCKED when not only did the verdict go in the complete oposite of what was expected, but they themselves were required to pay damages. Justice may be blind, but people involved with implementing justice are still human.

Re:Free speech.

[MrMickS (568778)]

If you ignore a core order, even if you believe that the order is incorrect, then you open yourself up to a charge of contempt of court. Ignoring court orders is a big deal.

He's got his publicity now, the pragmatic approach would be to comply with the court order. He can continue to fight the original order through the legal system, but to ignore it in this manner is only going to end one way.

Re:Free speech.

[simcop2387 (703011)]

Slander and defamation are crimes, even when they're true (or rather, especially when they're true), so speech is never free.

actually in the US (and i THINK many other countries) the truth is an absolute defense against defamation and slander, because both require that what was said be false in order to be either, the truth is not slander or defamation in the US (despite what many may want you to think)

Re:Free speech.

[adona1 (1078711)]

Australia does not have constitutionally guaranteed freedom of speech though. We have implied freedom of speech (High Court ruling) but that would probably fail against libel/slander laws passed by Parliament.

However, NZ is not yet a state of Australia, so I'm not sure why it's come up :)

Re:Free speech.

[stop bothering me (1221424)]

It probably came up in the same way that we get confused between the US and Canada.

Re:Free speech.

[Admiral Ag (829695)]

The impossibility of New Zealand joining is mentioned by every New Zealander.

Re:Free speech.

[Scannerman (1136265)]

Not strictly true. I have met a few New Zealanders who are reasonably sympathetic to the the idea of the West Island(s) joining, as long as they are governed from Wellington

Re:Free speech.

[cyberchuck.nz (1307417)]

What are some of the differences that make the New Zealanders so reluctant to unify with Australia? /USian, not familiar with local customs or grievances

We're both pretty competitive in the sporting arena - we play rugby against eachother, along with South Africa on a yearly basis(see Tri-Nations Cup [wikipedia.org]. My rustic memory of history tells me this eventuated from the end of WWI when our troops stopped in South Africa on their way home and started playing rugby there (but I could be wrong).
The same holds true for other sports - such as netball, cricket, etc

There's a few minor disputes over Australia claiming Pavlova [wikipedia.org] (a dessert), Phar Lap [wikipedia.org] (Race Horse) and Split Enz [wikipedia.org] (Band) from us - it's not really a big thing at the end of the day, but I suppose it makes us feel better bringing up this petty stuff when we get caned in the rugby

Economically, Australia has a slightly better exchange rate than we do, with $1 (NZ) being equivalent to around 80c (Aus), give or take a fluctuation. Economics isn't my forte, so I'll stay out of this area, however every few years we get someone saying we should have a shared currency with Aussie. On that note, we didn't join the "War on Terror" (Australia did, however) - although we sent troops for peace keeping and to help rebuild the country

We do allow citizens visa-less entry into eachothers countries, we trade a fair bit with eachother and everything - so we are pretty friendly despite it all - So I guess if you wanted a small analogy, it's similar to the US/Canada thing?

Re:Free speech.

[shimmyshimpson (1305497)]

Well, it's really a fait acompli anyway as half of NZ already reside at Manly. We put up with the silly "anti-oz" rantings that come from some of the kiwis, while kindly allowing huge numbers of them to flee their grim homeland and live here. Of course, it goes without saying that the only people heading the other way are some bored tourists off to NZ to look at the boiling mud....and the sheep. Every time you turn around in a large Oz city you see hordes of Nz'rs bouncing in pubs, or employed as furniture movers, and lots of lots of "Ah Bro?" going on.

Re:Free speech.

[Admiral Ag (829695)]

We're a different people. Please don't think that New Zealanders hate Australians. We don't. In fact, we like them better than any other nationality. It's a friendly rivalry, which manifests itself mostly in sports and in jokes hurled in both directions. Culturally, New Zealanders and Australians are more like each other than they are like anyone else. Any grievances are solely due to sports (Google underarm bowling incident, for example).

There are, however, a few political reasons why New Zealand will likely never merge with Australia. Australia has a more right wing political culture than New Zealand does. New Zealand tends to support the UN line on military interventions, while Australia is more pro US. New Zealand has also banned nuclear weapons, and that would have to go if there was a merger (trying to overturn the ban is somewhat of a third rail in NZ politics).

But the main problem would be the status of the Maori people of New Zealand. Maori have certain rights under treaty with the Crown, and no merger could ever occur unless the Australians recognized those rights. Australian Aboriginals have no such treaty rights, and a merger would create a dilemma because Aboriginal Australians would then have a basis to claim equivalent rights and there is no way the Australian public would go for that.

Re:Free speech.

[Opportunist (166417)]

Well, I hope we can agree that slander isn't what free speech is for. Free speech means that you may say your opinion and nobody may keep you from stating your opinion, but you may not accuse someone of criminal actions or defame him.

For example, I may (hopefully still, don't know to be honest) say that I think Bush is a threat to stability in this world. It could be considered slander if I said that he took bribes from corporations to start a war that killed thousands, US citizens and "others" alike, while lying to the US population to justify it. It certainly is slander when I say the US government sells laws to the highest bidder.

See the difference? Whether it's true or false doesn't even matter, that I can't prove it is.

Re:Free speech.

[baboo_jackal (1021741)]

I could go on with a rant about everything wrong with the world, specifically Australia, and our legal system

I tell you what - as much as Americans and Australians have to complain about regarding our respective protections of free speech, at least we don't live in Canada. Apparently, the Canadian Human Rights Commission has the jurisdiction to try private citizens for expressing opinions that can be classified as "hatespeak": Show-Trial here. [pajamasmedia.com]

The Canadian Court of Acceptable Thoughts has a historical 100% (no shit) "conviction" rate [blogspot.com]:

1. A mayor of London, Ontario was fined by this court because she *didn't* mandate a taxpayer-funded celebration of Gay Pride Day, requested by an exceedingly small minority of citizens.

2. The owner of a printing shop in Mississagua, ON lost around $100,000 in revenue and fines when he chose to not print gay and lesbian promotional material - he had business dealings with homosexual clients in the past, but in this particular instance, chose to decline their offer, which was based on his own personal opinions.

3. In 2000, Kelowna, B.C. (the city) was dragged in front of the Canadian Kangaroo Court of "Human Rights" because they celebrated "Gay and Lesbian Day," in 1997 (yes, three years prior to the complaint). The complaint? They didn't include the word "pride" in the celebration. The Mayor of Kelowna was found guilty.

4. A chapter of the Knights of Columbus (a privately-funded, *clearly* Catholic organization) was fined for choosing to not rent their convention hall to a same-sex couple for their marriage celebration.

Yikes. So, I guess my point is, just be thankful you don't live in Canada. As numerous the faults American government has, at least they still let us think for ourselves and don't fine us for expressing our opinions.

Standard sentence for contempt of court

[QuantumG (50515)]

When the judge orders you to do something, you do it, or you go to jail until such time as you agree to do it.

That's the only way the court system can work. The judge decides, not you. If you want to appeal, fine, do that, *after* you've followed the judge's orders. Otherwise, why would any other judge even listen to your appeal? It's obvious you don't respect the authority of the court.

Re:Standard sentence for contempt of court

[wizardforce (1005805)]

It's obvious you don't respect the authority of the court.

A justice system that ignores basic inalienable rights by definition has no authority in that regard. Sadly we've allowed those in higher positions of power to abuse our liberties with little to no resistance.

Re:Standard sentence for contempt of court

[JakartaDean (834076)]

A justice system that ignores basic inalienable rights by definition has no authority in that regard. Sadly we've allowed those in higher positions of power to abuse our liberties with little to no resistance.

Just as your right to swing your fist stops where it meets my nose, your right to free speech is not absolute. You don't have the right to shout "FIRE!" in a crowded is one oft-quoted example. Similarly, your right to continuously defame me in public is not an absolute right. If I ask a judge to tell you to stop, and perhaps seek damages through a libel suit, and he agrees, you stop. If he wants to consider the evidence further, but wants to avoid further damage to my reputation in the interim, he can and likely will ask you to stop for a while until the verdict is in. In other words, these are not 'inalienable' rights, if by that you mean they have no limits. Nowhere. Not in any jurisdiction you can think of, for many good reasons.

Further, if you had checked the site in question, you would read text like:

The catalyst for this site is a shady and morally bankrupt accountant named Michael Stiassny...

which is clearly defamatory, and therefore reasonable grounds for a suit and/or requesting a cease-and-desist order.

So... you can get off your high horse now. It doesn't fit here.

Re:Standard sentence for contempt of court

[geekgirlandrea (1148779)]

You don't have the right to shout "FIRE!" in a crowded is one oft-quoted example.

Oft and stupidly quoted, considering that it was originally used [wikipedia.org] to justify upholding a prison sentence for distributing anti-draft pamphlets. It really isn't going to be helping your argument to quote sources like *that*.

Re:Standard sentence for contempt of court

[Atlantis-Rising (857278)]

Indeed. The phrase in the summary:

"In an unprecedented move...

is a drastic oversimplification of the issue at hand.

A judge's order bears the force of law unless and until it is later overturned by a higher court.

You can't simply ignore it on the grounds that

He also maintains he had long ago proven in Court that the injunction was incorrect in fact and law but that the judge simply ignored the law and evidence.

The proper procedure is to ask for an interlocutory motion to allow the site to remain up, and if you don't get it, you take the site down.

Respect the authority of the Court- or the Court will show you why the government's authority is backed by force of arms.

Re:Standard sentence for contempt of court

[jcgf (688310)]

Respect the authority of the Court- or the Court will show you why the government's authority is backed by force of arms.

No, they will just show you that it is backed up by force of arms. There won't be any why involved.

The reason is of course that force is the only way to have authority.

Re:Standard sentence for contempt of court

[by Anonymous Coward]

Doesn't matter what the press says. Doesn't matter what the politicians or the mobs say. Doesn't matter if the whole country decides that something wrong is something right. This nation was founded on one principle above all else: the requirement that we stand up for what we believe, no matter the odds or the consequences. When the mob and the press and the whole world tell you to move, your job is to plant yourself like a tree beside the river of truth, and tell the whole world - "No, you move." -Captain America.

Re:Standard sentence for contempt of court

[totally bogus dude (1040246)]

Maybe so, but Captain New Zealand says: Do what the judge orders you to do, you idiot.

Re:Standard sentence for contempt of court

[j1mmy (43634)]

Great idea! Guys on death row should *definitely* wait until after being executed to appeal the sentence.

Re:Standard sentence for contempt of court

[Khaed (544779)]

Man, I hope you don't live somewhere with the death sentence for contempt of court...

Re:Standard sentence for contempt of court

[emjoi_gently (812227)]

Now that would be nice. To be able to simply disagree with the Law, and be able to get away with it.

Re:Standard sentence for contempt of court

[rcw-home (122017)]

Now that would be nice. To be able to simply disagree with the Law, and be able to get away with it.

It's happened a number of times. All you have to do is get enough people to agree with you.

History would disagree.

[copponex (13876)]

All you have to do is get enough people who are unified as a community and perform acts of public civil disobedience to agree with you. For referene, see the civil rights movement, women's suffrage movement, India's break from British rule.

Picking up a gun is for cowards who would rather die for a cause than live for one. The only exception (in the modern era) would be a foreign invasion. And then the occupying force would of course label you a terrorist.

Re:History would disagree.

[Tuoqui (1091447)]

I disagree... Picking up a gun is for people who would rather kill for their cause than die for one. Only problem is that the numbers willing to do such are typically 1-3 people at a time rather than organize a revolution of sorts.

Unfortunately

[Nasajin (967925)]

Freedom of speech is not a positively enforced inalienable right in New Zealand [teara.govt.nz]. If he thinks his right to freedom of expression has been breached, it's possbily correct, but there are other laws which supercede it. He'll be glad to know however, that the maximum period of imprisonment without parole in New Zealand is ten years. No matter what, he can still attempt parole in 2018...

Kiwis are Un-American!

[IntelliTubbie (29947)]

Geez, what's the matter with New Zealand? If they bothered to read the First, Fifth, Sixth, and Eighth Amendments to the U.S. Constitution, they'd know that this sort of thing is illegal. I thought this was America, but it's almost like these people live in some other country.

Cheers,
IT

Re:Kiwis are Un-American!

[Doh! (86796)]

New Zealand isn't part of the U.S., dumbass. It's part of Australia. I swear, they don't teach kids here in America anything these days...

Straight contempt of court case; but...

[fuzzyfuzzyfungus (1223518)]

From TFA, it looks like this is a fairly straightforward contempt of court case. Creepy; but hardly novel. It is, though, yet another demonstration of an interesting and important difference between American and Commonwealth approaches to defamation cases. In broad terms, truth of the defamatory statement is a much stronger defence in America than in Commonwealth nations.

Obviously, there are loads of details, and the best-laws-money-can-buy/Golden Rule can be a factor; but this is an area where I think that the American model is decisively superior. The idea that you can be subject to punishment just for being impolite enough to speak the truth is pretty creepy.

We should help this guy!

[francisstp (1137345)]

Seriously, his website has got to be one of the ugliest around, even by 1996 standards.

Stubborn...

[ral315 (741081)]

I agree that his imprisonment is a bit harsh, but he did violate a judge's order. Moreover, it's just stubbornness on his part; knowing there had been a trial in absentia, he should have just stayed out of New Zealand -- very few countries would extradite him for that charge.

Simple: Obey the law

[ESarge (140214)]

I'm a New Zealander and I'm actually quite angry about the tone the submitter took with this article. While you may feel that people should have the right to unrestricted free speech that is a completely irrelevant argument.

A judge has order Vince Siemer to do something and he has not done it. This must have a serious consequence or there would be no reason for anyone to follow a court order.

He has made his argument in court and lost. He can follow normal process to appeal that decision but refusing a court order is not a valid action.

From what I understand Vince Siemer has been afforded more than ample opportunity to obey the court order and has failed to do so.

The Solictor-General has also stated that Mr Siemer can be released as soon as he agrees to follow the court order. The most likely outcome is that Mr Siemer is imprisoned, he gets annoyed with it and follows the court order.

Indefinite imprisonment is the ultimate punishment and is used rather rarely. These are special cases which deserve it.

There was a case a year or two ago where the Family Court made a custody order which the mother didn't agree with. Some friends of the mother took the child and held him in secret against the court order. The court then imprisoned the mother indefinitely on the grounds that she knew where the child was. It took a few months but eventually the court order was followed and the child went to where the court had ordered.

So, I ask all of you, what else do you expect us to do?