• Full Story

Blogger Whaleoil faces more suppression charges

Email
Print

Tue, 02 Mar 2010 2:40p.m. UPDATED AT 2:57PM

Blogger Cameron Slater

Blogger Cameron Slater

Blogger Cameron Slater has had four more charges laid against him for breaching court-imposed suppression orders, taking the total to nine.

Slater was charged after his website published the names of people who appeared in court on primarily sex or violence charges - and had their names suppressed.

Today he appeared in the Auckland District Court and entered not guilty pleas to all of the charges, he is still vowing to continue to the practice, and said recent charges had no merit and would be dismissed quickly.

Slater faces a day long defended hearing in August.

RadioLIVE / 3 News

Become a fan of 3 News on Facebook and on Twitter.

Post a Comment

Before commenting, please take the time to read our moderation guide


(Won't be published)



Comments

02 Mar 2010 07:59p.m.

Lightseed wrote:

leemichelea, you still aren't getting it are you. Your view means nothing, what matters is what the victim wants, and the victim wanted name suppression. This person that you support has taken away what that victim wanted. He has made her a victim again of his pitiful attempt to get more traffic for his website. He has a known anger problem and is very aggressive and abusive to people who have stood up against him. For once in your life think about what the victim wants and not what you want, because the victim wanted name suppression but you don't seem able to understand that and simply want to make it about you.

02 Mar 2010 06:44p.m.

leemichelea wrote:

Can you not handle it when someone has a different point of view to you, lightseed? You have your view, I have mine.

02 Mar 2010 04:49p.m.

Lightseed wrote:

leemichelea, I will say this again because you did not understand. The Nelson man who was given name suppression was given name suppression to protect the teenage victim. Listen very closely, name suppression was given to protect the teenage victim. Again, name suppression was given to PROTECT the teenage VICTIM. I support the VICTIM, and in this case name suppression was placed against the offender to PROTECT the VICTIM. Can you comprehend that?

02 Mar 2010 04:17p.m.

leemichelea wrote:

I'm not supporting a person who attacked these victims. Cameron is merely revealing the truth. You are supporting the people who attack victims by wanting to suppress their names.

02 Mar 2010 03:40p.m.

Si wrote:

I think there is provision, but if you're found guilty, you should be named. None of this permanent name suppression. Also, his hearings in August, what a joke, oh well he has plenty of time to name and shame rapists and paedophiles till then.

02 Mar 2010 03:21p.m.

Lightseed wrote:

leemichelea, do you realise that the name suppression that he breached recently was put in place solely for the protection of the young teenage victim? How can you not support name suppression when it protects victims? A teenage victim in this case. You support a person who has attacked these victims by doing this.

02 Mar 2010 02:52p.m.

leemichelea wrote:

I don't accept any of the reasons for name suppression. Do victims really want the whole thing suppressed? This just protects the abusers. Good on you, Cameron.