By Jessica Rowe
Internet blogger Cameron Slater says New Zealand’s suppression laws are archaic and he will plead not guilty after being charged for breaching name suppression orders.
Mr Slater, who writes the ‘Whaleoil’ blog, appeared in Auckland District Court yesterday on five charges of breaking suppression after he posted pictorial clues on his blog, allegedly identifying the individuals in two sex offence cases.
One involved an Olympic Games competitor and another a well-known entertainer.
He entered no plea and will reappear in court on January 19.
He made his comments today while speaking to Michael Laws on RadioLIVE.
“I never named the people concerned. Suppression orders say you can’t use their name, their occupation and a couple of other details. I have certainly never done that. It is alleged that some pictures that were posted on my site named them,” says Mr Slater.
Mr Slater says that New Zealand’s suppression laws were reviewed and rewritten in 1985, five years before the internet started.
“So what we’ve got are laws that are built on archaic suppression laws that are far different from the UK, where suppression is very rare pre-conviction, and almost impossible to get post-conviction,” he says.
In the United States there is no such thing as suppression because the first amendment of the constitution protects the freedom of the press and freedom of speech.
“There seems to be a predilection of the judges at the moment, if you are famous, to give you a post-conviction suppression, permanently, even though you were guilty, and so people don’t know.
“In the two cases I am accused of - these are blokes who have a history and are indeed convicted of violence against women,” he says.
“I am surprised there are not more women out there screaming from the rooftop.”
Mr Slater believes the current system punishes people who work in a similar profession to those who get name suppression.
“Those people in those industries are tarred with a brush forever – particularly for the entertainer who got name suppression post conviction,” he says.
Mr Slater says his actions were not a publicity act.
“Everyone who reads my blog knows I hold strong views and I am kind of a black and white person. When I choose something to make a stand on, I make a stand on it. I haven’t sought publicity on this, it has sought me actually.”
Since being charged with breaching name suppression, Mr Slater says traffic to his blog, Whaleoil, has increased dramatically – even getting 20,000 hits on Christmas Day.
Mr Slater will reappear in court on January 19.
3 News / RadioLIVE
Transcription of Cameron Slater’s interview with Michael Laws
Laws: This is a publicity stunt isn’t it?
Slater: Everyone who reads my blog knows I hold strong views and I am kind of a black and white person and when I choose something to make a stand on, I make a stand on it. I haven’t sought publicity on this, it has sought me actually.
Laws: In terms of breaching suppression orders what have you alleged to have done. You didn’t actually name them on your blog did you.
Slater: No, I never named the people concerned. Suppression orders say you can’t use their name, their occupation and a couple of other details and I have certainly never done that. It is alleged that some pictures posted that were posted on my site named them. So it is an interesting case.
Laws: But you were clearly intending to skirt the name suppression law weren’t you? By at least pointing people in the right direction, but without going as far.
Slater: I’m not sure about intending, you know intent is part of what the police are looking to try and prosecute me with.
This is the important thing…For the Olympian I commented on the case, but for the entertainer - those people in those industries are tarred with a brush forever – particularly for the entertainer who got name suppression post conviction.
And this is what Bill Hodge was talking about last night. There is a big difference between pre-conviction and post conviction suppression and there seems to be a predilection of the judges at the moment, if you are famous, to give you a post conviction suppression – permanently even though you were guilty.
And so people don’t know and in particular, in the two cases I am accused of these are blokes who have a history and are indeed convicted of violence against women, and I am surprised there are not more women screaming from the rooftop.
Laws: The maximum penalty for this charge is $1000, that isn’t sufficient is it?
Slater: Again it is the maximum. Have you ever known a court in New Zealand to apply the maximum to anybody.
If we compare new Zealand and our suppression laws, and lets be honest, they were written or reviewed really and rewritten in 1985 – that’s five years before the world wide web actually even started.
What we’ve got are laws that are built on archaic suppression laws that are far different from the UK, where suppression is very rare pre conviction, and almost impossible to get post conviction.
And in the United States there is no such thing as suppression because the first amendment of the constitution protects the freedom of the press and freedom of speech and so anyone who tries to suppress it just gets it tossed out of court because first amendment rights of the press supersede anything else.