Blogger court case draws line in sand - journalism expert

Alien, I was referring to the Privacy Act 1993, which can be found here:
http://www.privacy.org.nz/privacy-act-summary/
Work and Income are supposed to give respect to their clients' personal information, even if they are lying gang members and scumbags like Harris. As a basis of comparison, how many mps, from Labour or National, have recently, eg in the last three years, been involved with "knowingly miss-leading people with false facts"?

go the Whale .. if I was either of the people, whoever they are, I would not get name suppresion so why should they?
Those who keep slagging off Paula Bennett for outing the 2 (or at least 1) of the woman on the DPB seem to ignore that they themselves brought themselves into the public eye by crying to the Labour Party who then used them for their own political purposes .. which backfired. The Fuller woman "earns" about $1000 per week nett which is more than I do. I also pay 8% into a retirement scheme which she does NOT need to do.

Theres a difference between Harris, who is misleading the public and the Gaff that Bennett made in July of 2009 when she released Personal information of two women on the DPB, in the July case Bennett was nasty and everyone was arguing that labours way of releasing information (on the doorstep) was much nicer than the sheer nastiness that Bennett used at that time.

You now have hypocrites like Bennett who used her Maori heritage to get more funding from the system when she was a solo mum as well as using the defunct Training Incentive Allowance scheme which under National no longer exists.

So Bennett puts herself up there as an example of how someone can get off the DPB... except there were alot more systems in place to help solo mums achieve this.. before Bennett got into power.

And I guess that with this matter you have to argue that this guy was releasing names or descriptions of offenders that havent actually been convicted so he was interfering with their right to a fair and proper legal process.

We blame people, and convict them.. after they have been to trial not before that.

Felicia, paula bennet has not broken any laws. The first cases the law stood behind her as she is legally entitled to release information about people when they are knowingly miss-leading people with false facts. Perhaps you should be more worried about the labour mp's who will leave confidential information under the doors of journalists, their way of leaking things to the media.

Alien since you 'know all' about freedom of speech and rights before the law, could you please help Paula Bennett to learn what they mean.

anakjovo, so much for intelligence huh? Freedom of speech does not give anyone the right to legally break a court suppression order. Go back to school and learn what freedom of speech means.

So much of "freedom of speech" in western society eh!