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]

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...

Standard sentence for contempt of court

[QuantumG]

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]

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:Free speech.

[etymxris]

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

Re:Free speech.

[simcop2387]

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:Standard sentence for contempt of court

[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

[emjoi_gently]

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

Re:Free speech.

[Opportunist]

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:Standard sentence for contempt of court

[jcgf]

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.

so let me get this straight.

[timmarhy]

So this guy was told be a court of law to stop making false claims, but he thinks because he feels he is right and the court is wrong that's grounds to ignore the sourt order?

and he is suprised they are coming after him why???? here's a news flash for him - if you've been shown to be wrong in a court room, there's a good chance you really ARE wrong and a little self examination is in order.

although the indefinate jail term is pure nonesense he should still expect to go to jail for 6 months or so over it.

Re:And keeping the site up is illegal

[aussie_a]

Tell that to Ghandi.

Re:Standard sentence for contempt of court

[rcw-home]

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.

Re:Ummm

[aussie_a]

If that's the best response you can come up with then I finally understand why people rail against the American education system.

Re:Free speech.

[Walkingshark]

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

Re:Standard sentence for contempt of court

[Anonymous Coward]

What's your basis for calling what is misrepresented in this case as free speech?

Keep in mind this is in New Zealand, not America. Your constitution doesn't apply here and NZ has no freedom of speech laws.

Re:Free speech.

[Anonymous Coward]

Rather the American understanding of it. The American concept of free speech is rather significantly more broad than most other cultures. More over there's a kind of obligation to defy whatever authority, obviously deserving of blood-letting, that would position itself as an obstacle to it. This could end up having economic consequences for NZ if it gets picked up on say the American evening news.

Straight contempt of court case; but...

[fuzzyfuzzyfungus]

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.

Re:Free speech.

[Narpak]

As long as you can be sued for slander, you don't have free speech.

Free speech is, in my view, about being able to share political, social and economic ideas without being taken out back and shoot/arrested/tortured.

Not being fired or arrested for your polical views or sexual orentation is about free speech; being fired for calling your boss an Asshole isn't. I feel that is appropriate that slander is a crime, even though such laws are rarely enforced since slander can in many cases be very hard to prove/disprove.

However, in this particular case I feel that Vince Siemer is the victim of a flawed judicial system that need rigorous re-evaluation (as do all judical systems really).

Re:Standard sentence for contempt of court

[Harmonious Botch]

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

All you have to do is get enough armed people to agree with you.
...fixed that for you.

Re:Standard sentence for contempt of court

[Narpak]

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

Unless you have (read: claim) divine authority; something of a force in its own right. Not to mention the fact that divine authority often comes from previous generations having used force to change the religous landscape of a region.

So I guess I am agreeing, yes the ultimate source of all authority is force.

Stubborn...

[ral315]

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.

Re:Standard sentence for contempt of court

[HJED]

How can he take a website down in jail?
bring on the paradoxes.....

Re:Free speech.

[History's Coming To]

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...

Simple: Obey the law

[ESarge]

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?

Re:Free speech.

[Petrushka]

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

Re:Slander and defamation -- definition

[harryjohnston]

But what happens if the defendant is found guilty, but simply refuses to comply with the court's decision?

I find it hard to believe that someone can simply ignore a court order in the US and nothing will happen to him.

Re:Free speech.

[htnprm]

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.

History would disagree.

[copponex]

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]

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.

Re:Standard sentence for contempt of court

[Anonymous Coward]

The proper remedy to free speech is more free speech. If someone keeps saying defamatory things about you, it's up to you to refute him, not run crying to mommy to make him stop. No one has the right to avoid criticism.

Just because our current legal system allows you to shut someone up doesn't mean it's right to do so. Free speech means nothing if it doesn't include the right to say things that upset people.

Re:Free speech.

[dcam]

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:Standard sentence for contempt of court

[SpeedyDX]

I assume you are referring to people like Martin Luther King Jr., Ghandi, and other "activists". Unfortunately, you're wrong. MLK, Ghandi, and others all agree with the position that you may defy a law, but you must ultimately submit to the law's punishment. Not doing so would result in the disintegration of the state.

Look at the WTO protests in Seattle, Wash. in 1999 [wikipedia.org] for a recent example. The actions of the mayor and the police were CLEARLY wrong, but the protestors did not try to "get away with" breaching the "no-protest" zones and police/mayoral orders. They pursued legal avenues and used the legal system to clear up the situation. Ultimately, they submitted to the authority of the law, and the consequences - it just so happened that the consequences worked in their favour.

not really that different... just less severe

[SethJohnson]

...an interesting and important difference between American and Commonwealth approaches...

New Zealand indefinitely jails an American for violating a court order. America indefinitely jails foreigners without even filing charges [google.com] against them. Oh, and tortures them. And sometimes files unknown numbers of them away in secret overseas torture prisons [americantorture.com] without any accountability.

Seth

Re:Free speech.

[Walkingshark]

Regardless of location, human rights apply. Speech is one of those. Defamation belongs in civil court, and non compliance with a court in a case like this has no logic for prison time (taking a resource from someone that can never be recompensed), though I think fines for non compliance are reasonable (as if the court turns out to be wrong on appeal, the money can be recompensed).

Re:Free speech.

[lysse]

This is the worst kind of anecdote. It's impossible to determine anything about your friend's situation with any certainty: you imply that you weren't personally involved in the case, which makes it hearsay; your account of it presumably comes from your friend, and so is certainly prejudiced and possibly incomplete; you don't even mention under which jurisdiction the case was heard, let alone whether the case is a matter of public record or the name of the judge; you don't provide any details of the case, not even broad ones - the only thing we can glean from your anecdote is that your friend lost, badly, a case they were expecting to win...

As far as I'm concerned, it would be better if this anecdote were stricken from the record.

Re:Free speech.

[mgblst]

New Zealand tends to support the UN line on military interventions, while Australia is more pro US.

Well, this has changed now that the so called Liberal government has been kicked out. Hopefully some level-headedness will ensue.

Australia is a very rich country compares to NZ, mostly because it is huge and has a ridiculous amount of resources available to be mined.

Re:Different in the USA

[h4rm0ny]

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

Re:Context and Definition

[Nasajin]

Unh, I'm not studying law, and also, I'm not raging against the system. Furthermore, if someone is scantily clad, no matter what they've done, their dress sense shouldn't be the basis for deciding a court case. You're way off topic - grow up, and stop over-signifying the content of people's discussions.

Re:Standard sentence for contempt of court

[Das Modell]

No, it is not okay. Plenty of people in the world have encountered legal problems for "defaming" Muslims or Islam, not to mention death threats, assassination attempts and untimely deaths. Then there are all those terrorist attacks, riots and other expressions of perpetual outrage. Criticizing Muslims or Islam is strictly forbidden in the West (and obviously in the Islamic world, but for slightly different reasons). Insinuating that Islam is anything less than perfection is politically incorrect, morally unsound and means that you support Hitler.

The definition of "defamation" is also so broad that it includes things like making factual statements or pointing out events that have taken place.

Re:Slander and defamation -- definition

[DaveV1.0]

The person can be jailed for contempt of court. The length of the jailing can be specified and/or limited by law and it can be at the discretion of the court, which can set a length of "until he complies with the order".

Case in point: A reporter was held in jail for two years for contempt of court for refusing to name a source.

Re:Free speech.

[Anonymous Coward]

"It certainly is slander when I say 'the US government sells laws to the highest bidder.'"

Uhh, only if it is untrue. And on its face, it looks kinna, well, true.

Re:Different in the USA

[Free the Cowards]

Let me get this straight, you think that a society which allows people to sue other people because the other person hurt their feelings would be better?