Beta
×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

Indefinite Imprisonment For Web Site Content

kdawson posted more than 6 years ago | from the throwing-away-the-key dept.

Censorship 484

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."

cancel ×

484 comments

Sorry! There are no comments related to the filter you selected.

We need miltary government around the world. (-1, Troll)

twiiiter (1309427) | more than 6 years ago | (#23834201)

A military government works best for its people. It should serve only the citizens of the country, no one else. It is working in Russia, where internet crime / fraud against U.S. entity goes unpunished, because it brings in $$$ that helps the Russian economy. Therefore any crime committed by U.S. citizens outside of U.S. should be automatically pardoned. If the host country does not release the POW under our request, we have the right to initiate military action. HEIL HITLER!

vince siemer is a jew (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#23834207)

that's why

Re:We need miltary government around the world. (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#23834211)

Way to fuck up a first post.

U.S.A. MUST INVADE NEW ZEALAND NOW (-1, Troll)

twiiiter (1309427) | more than 6 years ago | (#23834249)

to extract our POW over there.

Re:U.S.A. MUST INVADE NEW ZEALAND NOW (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#23834741)

Stop being gay.

Re:We need miltary government around the world. (-1, Flamebait)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#23834331)

When I see posts with "HEIL HITLER" being modded up, I know the new age has arrived.

I see the hope of the Palestinian people having their own country for the first time in the 21st century.

I see the plan of the Jew World Domination is once again defeated.

I see the rise of the new civilization ... the Asian civilization.

Goodwin's Law on frist psot? (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#23834405)

There may be an award for that.

Cheney will be the new dictator. (-1, Flamebait)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#23834447)

Most humorous post today! Also true.

Not "HEIL HITLER!" -- > HEIL CHENEY. Cheney's no-bid contract Halliburton is rapidly building prisons [nytimes.com] . Obviously someone has a plan to use them.

Cheney is planning to invade Iran [informatio...house.info] . A lot of people are saying that Cheney plans martial law [towardfreedom.com] . Prepare [tripod.com] for living in a military dictatorship.

People with plenty of political experience are saying Cheney plans to attack the U.S. [prisonplanet.com] and claim that it was Iran that attacked. (false flag operation)

SIEG HEIL! (-1, Flamebait)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#23834465)

Hitler is indeed the only solution to the world foremost problem - the International Jew. We must endeavor to clone the Fuhrer from his ashes and bring him back from the dead so that he may lead us into a glorious new age of enlightenment and greatness. Only Hitler has the macht to take on the challenges we are faced with today and emerge the victor. He was beaten before only because the International Jew managed to unite both the forces of capitalism and communism against him. That will not happen a second time. The second coming of Hitler shall be victorious over all nations and peoples.

HITLER UBER ALLES!

Re:SIEG HEIL! (-1, Offtopic)

HJED (1304957) | more than 6 years ago | (#23834597)

no one knows or knew what happed to hitlers ashes

JEWS ARE LINKED TO COMMIES RUSSIAN (-1, Offtopic)

twittter (1309597) | more than 6 years ago | (#23834605)

As a catholic, we all believe the story of our lady of Fatima. http://catholicvoice.co.uk/khazar.htm [catholicvoice.co.uk] The current day jews are all originate in Russia. No wonder why Hitler spend so much resource to fight Russia. He know where the source of all trouble come from. And you should know that Oppenheimer and Einstein sold nuclear secrets to the Soviets as well.

Re:We need miltary government around the world. (-1, Offtopic)

TheVelvetFlamebait (986083) | more than 6 years ago | (#23834551)

Fuck off twitter, we don't want your anti-MS ra... ... oh what, you're twiiiter? Oh I'm so sorry. Please continue.

Re:We need miltary government around the world. (0, Flamebait)

twittter (1309597) | more than 6 years ago | (#23834699)

Join our fight against M$ and international jewry.

Free speech. (5, Insightful)

NoobixCube (1133473) | more than 6 years ago | (#23834221)

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. (5, Insightful)

etymxris (121288) | more than 6 years ago | (#23834315)

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

Re:Free speech. (5, Informative)

aussie_a (778472) | more than 6 years ago | (#23834429)

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

Different in the USA (4, Informative)

tjstork (137384) | more than 6 years ago | (#23834649)

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. (2, Informative)

NickHydroxide (870424) | more than 6 years ago | (#23834739)

I don't know where you got your law degree from, but I suggest you return it along with the cereal box in which it came.

(aside: slander/libel have been subsumed into the one tort of defamation. A criminal offence of defamation does exist, but is very, very rarely invoked or pursued)

Re:Free speech. (4, Informative)

Zouden (232738) | more than 6 years ago | (#23834439)

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. (5, Insightful)

Walkingshark (711886) | more than 6 years ago | (#23834509)

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. (2, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#23834555)

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.

Re:Free speech. (2, Interesting)

harryjohnston (1118069) | more than 6 years ago | (#23834863)

Just out of curiosity, how far do you think someone's right to free speech goes? If someone convinced your boss that you were a member of al Qaeda, and you got fired as a result, would that still be free speech and perfectly OK by you?

Speech can cause harm, and since most Governments don't allow you to defend yourself against harm of this sort, I'd argue that the Government has an obligation to defend you instead, i.e., defamation laws.

Re:Free speech. (4, Insightful)

Petrushka (815171) | more than 6 years ago | (#23834875)

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:Free speech. (1)

Guppy06 (410832) | more than 6 years ago | (#23834575)

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

True for most (if not all) US states (usually by way of their constitutions), but IIRC most commonwealth realms (at least) don't have such a protection.

Re:Free speech. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#23834577)

Slander and defamation are not crimes when what is said is true.
This is true, the definition for slander requires the spoken words to be false, libel simply being the printed version of slander.

Truth has always been the best defence against slander suits "Yer Honor, it cant be slander, he really DOES screw sheep, look we got pictures."

Slander and defamation -- definition (3, Informative)

sunbird (96442) | more than 6 years ago | (#23834717)

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:Slander and defamation -- definition (2, Insightful)

harryjohnston (1118069) | more than 6 years ago | (#23834881)

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. (4, Insightful)

History's Coming To (1059484) | more than 6 years ago | (#23834827)

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. (5, Insightful)

simcop2387 (703011) | more than 6 years ago | (#23834321)

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. (4, Informative)

adona1 (1078711) | more than 6 years ago | (#23834491)

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. (2, Funny)

HJED (1304957) | more than 6 years ago | (#23834645)

However, NZ is not yet a state of Australia, so I'm not sure why it's come up :)
I belive the oprative work in that sentance in not yet

Re:Free speech. (2, Interesting)

deniable (76198) | more than 6 years ago | (#23834709)

The possibility of New Zealand joining is mentioned in the Australian constitution.

Re:Free speech. (5, Funny)

Admiral Ag (829695) | more than 6 years ago | (#23834897)

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

Re:Free speech. (4, Insightful)

Opportunist (166417) | more than 6 years ago | (#23834383)

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. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#23834397)

Would it actually be "slander" if what he wrote about on his website were actually true?

BTW you can defend yourself. Hire a lawyer and sue them right back.

Re:Free speech. (2, Insightful)

Narpak (961733) | more than 6 years ago | (#23834635)

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:Free speech. (1)

harryjohnston (1118069) | more than 6 years ago | (#23834899)

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).

I'm curious to know why you think this to be the case, nothing in TFA suggests this to me. Do you have other information? I'd be interested in any references you can provide.

Standard sentence for contempt of court (5, Insightful)

QuantumG (50515) | more than 6 years ago | (#23834227)

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 (-1, Troll)

morari (1080535) | more than 6 years ago | (#23834265)

Stop being such a tool.

Re:Standard sentence for contempt of court (5, Insightful)

wizardforce (1005805) | more than 6 years ago | (#23834277)

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 (1)

QuantumG (50515) | more than 6 years ago | (#23834449)

Do you believe everything you read or what? Every story has two sides.

Re:Standard sentence for contempt of court (2, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#23834523)

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:Standard sentence for contempt of court (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#23834583)

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

Sometimes reading the preview IS useful.

Re:Standard sentence for contempt of court (5, Informative)

JakartaDean (834076) | more than 6 years ago | (#23834675)

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 (-1, Flamebait)

History's Coming To (1059484) | more than 6 years ago | (#23834867)

You honour: I murdered 14 children, 8 pregnant women, six kittens and a partridge residing in some kind of fruit bearing tree. I admit it, I did it. I enjoyed it. However, you may not have me executed because it would infringe my right you continue speaking freely.

Dear America, when you make up your collective minds on the above, please get back to the rest of us. Bring cake.

Re:Standard sentence for contempt of court (4, Informative)

Atlantis-Rising (857278) | more than 6 years ago | (#23834285)

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 (4, Insightful)

jcgf (688310) | more than 6 years ago | (#23834387)

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 (2, Insightful)

Narpak (961733) | more than 6 years ago | (#23834681)

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.

Re:Standard sentence for contempt of court (2, Interesting)

rcw-home (122017) | more than 6 years ago | (#23834307)

Otherwise, why would any other judge even listen to your appeal? It's obvious you don't respect the authority of the court.

Of course he doesn't. Laws, precedence, bungled defense be damned: the court is wrong.

Re:Standard sentence for contempt of court (4, Insightful)

emjoi_gently (812227) | more than 6 years ago | (#23834369)

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 (4, Insightful)

rcw-home (122017) | more than 6 years ago | (#23834457)

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:Standard sentence for contempt of court (2, Insightful)

Harmonious Botch (921977) | more than 6 years ago | (#23834637)

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 (0)

Devin Jeanpierre (1243322) | more than 6 years ago | (#23834859)

Unless you've got a whole bunch of amputees that agree with you, I doubt being armed is much of a problem.

Re:Standard sentence for contempt of court (1)

rcw-home (122017) | more than 6 years ago | (#23834887)

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

Sure helps, but no, not [wikipedia.org] even [wikipedia.org] that [wikipedia.org] is [wikipedia.org] necessary [wikipedia.org] .

Re:Standard sentence for contempt of court (2, Interesting)

wolf12886 (1206182) | more than 6 years ago | (#23834329)

That may be, but just because his court ruling makes authoritative sense, doesn't make it any more or less unjust.

And keeping the site up is illegal (1)

EmbeddedJanitor (597831) | more than 6 years ago | (#23834415)

just or not.

There's a process to be followed so that you don't just get anarchy.

Re:And keeping the site up is illegal (2, Insightful)

aussie_a (778472) | more than 6 years ago | (#23834445)

Tell that to Ghandi.

Ummm (2, Funny)

EmbeddedJanitor (597831) | more than 6 years ago | (#23834451)

He's dead.

Re:Ummm (1, Insightful)

aussie_a (778472) | more than 6 years ago | (#23834473)

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

Re:Standard sentence for contempt of court (5, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#23834339)

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 (4, Funny)

totally bogus dude (1040246) | more than 6 years ago | (#23834655)

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

Re:Standard sentence for contempt of court (5, Funny)

j1mmy (43634) | more than 6 years ago | (#23834353)

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

Re:Standard sentence for contempt of court (4, Funny)

Khaed (544779) | more than 6 years ago | (#23834543)

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

Re:Standard sentence for contempt of court (1)

Opportunist (166417) | more than 6 years ago | (#23834411)

A justice system that ignores its own laws doesn't deserve the name and certainly not my honoring of its decisions.

For fuck's sake, does anyone still have balls in this country or is everyone too used to being a "good citizen"? If Washington and his pals had been "good citizens", you'd probably still be singing God save the Queen.

Re:Standard sentence for contempt of court (1)

bane2571 (1024309) | more than 6 years ago | (#23834799)

You do realize that the "this country" you are referring to is in this case still nominally under the rule of the Queen of england right? So in that sense they probably are still singing god save the queen.

Re:Standard sentence for contempt of court (1)

MrMista_B (891430) | more than 6 years ago | (#23834425)

Well, if you had read the article, you would have realized that he's already spent half a year in jail.

Now, the judge is wanting him to spend an 'indefinate amount of time' in jail.

He has yet to be accused of any crime.

Not knowing all the facts, it seems like it's the judge, in this case, who's in the wrong. Furthermore, the man that the judge is trying to persecute, even beyond the six months of his life already taken from him, should have grounds to have the judge disbarred or imprisoined for criminal harrasment - at the very least, he should seek embassy protection.

Seriously, this is the kind of abuse that you usually hear about from Iran, North Korea or China - I thought New Zealand was better than that. Judging by this, I thought wrong.

Correction: (1)

MrMista_B (891430) | more than 6 years ago | (#23834435)

Sorry, that's six weeks, not six months - six days would have been too long, given the nature of his 'crime'.

Re:Standard sentence for contempt of court (1)

QuantumG (50515) | more than 6 years ago | (#23834493)

The crime is contempt of court.. and yes, it is one of the few crimes that carries a sentence that is 'indefinite'. That means that he is held until such time as he complies with the order of the court. So long as his web site is up, he will be in prison. As soon as he takes it down, they'll let him out. This is not exactly hard to understand, is it?

Re:Standard sentence for contempt of court (2, Insightful)

HJED (1304957) | more than 6 years ago | (#23834687)

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

Re:Standard sentence for contempt of court (0)

QuantumG (50515) | more than 6 years ago | (#23834695)

He's not in solitary confinement...

idiot.

Re:Standard sentence for contempt of court (1)

Walkingshark (711886) | more than 6 years ago | (#23834535)

Why should you respect the authority of a court that has overstepped the bounds of its authority? Unchecked power is just as bad in the hands of the judicial branch as it is in the hands of the executive or legislative branches.

You must be a judge, or a glutton for punishment.

Re:Standard sentence for contempt of court (1)

QuantumG (50515) | more than 6 years ago | (#23834599)

The court can't "overstep" anything. It's a court, it doesn't *do* anything, it just exists. The judge, on the other hand, may have overstepped his bounds but the court has a system for dealing with judges that overstep their bounds and that system is not "nah nah nah, I can't hear you!!" This dickwad just doesn't want to follow the process.

Re:Standard sentence for contempt of court (1)

aralin (107264) | more than 6 years ago | (#23834871)

Nice advice. Let's see how much Microsoft followed it. Or does it only work that way if an actually living breathing person does it?

Re:Standard sentence for contempt of court (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#23834891)

sieg heil mother fucker

Unfortunately (5, Informative)

Nasajin (967925) | more than 6 years ago | (#23834247)

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...

Re:Unfortunately (1)

zonky (1153039) | more than 6 years ago | (#23834571)

He won't get parole if he doesn't not freely accept he commited his crimes, mind.

Re:Unfortunately (2, Interesting)

Nasajin (967925) | more than 6 years ago | (#23834803)

True, although I think that he's aware that what he has done is illegal. I think the purpose of his continuted breach of the gag order is possibly a form of protest over the attempted censorship of his website's content. The issue relates to an insolvency lawyer falsely declaring a company bankrupt in order to obtain control over the company's assets, and Seimer revealing this data on his website.

Some judges in New Zealand are corrupt, and others are so narrow-minded that they're damaging to people. The first year law paper at my university includes a portion on various judges' responses to rape cases, of which the most memorable response was that of "if you were wearing clothes like that, then you were asking for it." Not the most uplifting thing to know about your country's legal system.

In other news... (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#23834359)

New Zealand announces the creation of the Ministry of Truth and Justice, designed to promote honesty and integrity in this fine nation.

What I find more amazing is... (1, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#23834389)

...that Slashdot actually cares that an American is being treated badly outside the USA. There is so much anti-USA sentiment here, it makes Osama Bin Ladin look like Uncle Sam's yes-man.

Re:What I find more amazing is... (0, Flamebait)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#23834427)

there are so many anti-USA sentiment right now because most of them know the U.S. Government is a zionist-occupied government.

Re:What I find more amazing is... (-1, Troll)

willlyhill (1309611) | more than 6 years ago | (#23834817)

We need to do more to clean up the International Jews that infiltrated the U.S. government. We are now is extreme danger!

Re:What I find more amazing is... (1)

ulash (1266140) | more than 6 years ago | (#23834835)

Is it me or is there an amazingly high correlation between being an "Anonymous Coward" and being mind-numbingly ignorant?

Oh please, get off your high horse. (-1, Flamebait)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#23834901)

Just admit it, when you saw it was an Ugly American in gaol you snickered and thought it was time those arrogant Dubya loving Yanks got a taste of their condescending medicine.

We know we're the least liked nation in the history of the world. Why pretend it's not the truth?

so let me get this straight. (3, Insightful)

timmarhy (659436) | more than 6 years ago | (#23834423)

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.

Kiwis are Un-American! (5, Funny)

IntelliTubbie (29947) | more than 6 years ago | (#23834469)

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

New Zeeland is third-world (-1, Flamebait)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#23834511)

tihs place is theird woold that has good bass fishing but the palce is fucking prehistoric and thord world; Austrial is the newer world go their if you lust go donw iunder

Re:New Zeeland is third-world (0, Flamebait)

zonky (1153039) | more than 6 years ago | (#23834517)

Bass fishing? In New Zealand?

Re:New Zeeland is third-world (1)

zonky (1153039) | more than 6 years ago | (#23834735)

Bass fishing? In New Zealand?
Tsk mods, It's all Brown & Rainbow trout in NZ, you know.

Straight contempt of court case; but... (3, Insightful)

fuzzyfuzzyfungus (1223518) | more than 6 years ago | (#23834617)

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:Straight contempt of court case; but... (1)

harryjohnston (1118069) | more than 6 years ago | (#23834813)

Do you have any particular reason to believe that what he was saying is in fact true? Or are you just assuming that he's honest 'cause he's an American?

We should help this guy! (5, Funny)

francisstp (1137345) | more than 6 years ago | (#23834629)

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

NZ is the english speaking version of North Korea (0, Flamebait)

skeptictank (841287) | more than 6 years ago | (#23834643)

so I am not really surprised by this. They have big posters of Peter Jackson on all the buildings instead of Kim Jung Ill, but more cannibalism and sheep.

Re:NZ is the english speaking version of North Kor (1)

mrbluze (1034940) | more than 6 years ago | (#23834731)

They have big posters of Peter Jackson on all the buildings instead of Kim Jung Ill, but more cannibalism and sheep.
And more Orcs. You forgot Orcs.

Stubborn... (4, Insightful)

ral315 (741081) | more than 6 years ago | (#23834683)

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.

Not wanting to wade through bias (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#23834705)

has any formal investigation ever been set up to explore the validity of his claims?
These are some pretty serious implications and it would certainly be pretty bad libel or possibly a serious deal of corruption if either side actually published any compelling proof for their side.

In the same spirit of the unprecedented overblown (1)

gd23ka (324741) | more than 6 years ago | (#23834723)

The New Zealand prosecutor needs to be removed by force from New Zealand, shipped to the
United States where his executions is carried out by iranian medical staff who will
surgically remove his kidneys after which he will be taken to a holding cell and denied
dialysis until his death.

Why on earth did he go back? (1)

istartedi (132515) | more than 6 years ago | (#23834725)

Why on earth did this guy fly back to a country that was likely to imprison him?

Before I read TFA I was reminded of US hostages in Iran; but they had an excuse. They were there and the revolution blew up on them. I can see that. Flying into Iran after the revolution and getting trapped? Your own stupid fault. This is not to suggest that NZ is like Iran; but flying into a country where you are likely to get stuck is just stupid. Did he have any discussion at all with US authorities before leaving? I bet anybody here would have advised that since he returned voluntarily, we weren't going to make an effort to get him back.

Re:Why on earth did he go back? (1)

jcgf (688310) | more than 6 years ago | (#23834833)

Wow man, you ever read your sig...on weed?

You are also correct about the guy flying into a hostile (to him at least) nation. I hope prisons in NZ aren't like Oz...

Let is get this right. (2, Informative)

Demena (966987) | more than 6 years ago | (#23834807)

His is being jailed for contempt of court not exercising free speech. He was asked to comply with a temporary order during legal proceedings. He refuses and still does so.

Simple: Obey the law (5, Insightful)

ESarge (140214) | more than 6 years ago | (#23834839)

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?
Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?

Submission Text Formatting Tips

We support a small subset of HTML, namely these tags:

  • b
  • i
  • p
  • br
  • a
  • ol
  • ul
  • li
  • dl
  • dt
  • dd
  • em
  • strong
  • tt
  • blockquote
  • div
  • quote
  • ecode

"ecode" can be used for code snippets, for example:

<ecode>    while(1) { do_something(); } </ecode>