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: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.

[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.

[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.

[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.

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

[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

[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.

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

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?