The Dim-Post

October 15, 2010

I’m not worried

Filed under: media,technology — danylmc @ 7:17 am

Via Stuff:

Justice Minister Simon Power has ordered a review into the ”wild west” of the internet, he announced today.

The Law Commission will examine the adequacy of regulations around how the internet interacts with the justice system.

Bloggers and online publishers are not subject to any form of regulation or professional or ethical standards, Mr Power told Parliament.

“I’ve ordered this review because it’s imperative the law keeps pace with technology and that we have one set of rules for all news media,” Mr Power said.

“At the moment we’ve got two tracks – conventional media and the so-called ‘new media’ – intersecting with the justice system, and it’s not sustainable.”

I guess the Law Commission will recommend we adopt one of those cheap, effective internet regulatory environments that other developed countries use.

About these ads

20 Comments »

  1. You left out “satire” from your tags. This is a centre-right, free-market, National Government. It wouldn’t be trying to regulate something that is currently deregulated – certainly not in a way which might compromise free conversational speech. There must be some confusion somewhere.

    Comment by Matthew Hooton — October 15, 2010 @ 7:25 am

  2. Hooton, this isn’t a matter of regulating. It’s a case of ensuring the rule of law is maintained. Because the internets is the wild wild west, dontchaknow?

    L

    Comment by Lew — October 15, 2010 @ 7:27 am

  3. Gotcha Kimosabe. You mean the internet is one of those places where, say, someone breaches a name supression order, then there is nothing the police or courts can do about it?

    Comment by Matthew Hooton — October 15, 2010 @ 7:34 am

  4. I get the feeling Power is one of those guys who has his secretary print out his emails for him.

    The same stuffed shirt is on Stuff this morning concerned that alcohol is now cheaper than bottled water, almost as though bottled water wasn’t a luxury product for people with more money than sense.

    Seriously, if anyone out there wants to come along and prate on about Labour being busybody nanny-state enthusiasts, now’s good…

    Comment by Psycho Milt — October 15, 2010 @ 7:40 am

  5. @Lew:

    Sure – and I’ve got to agree with DPF on this: Is the review a bad idea? No. The Justice Minister chuntering on like a faintly unhinged Herald columnist pontificating about the eeevil internet from atop a mountain of dung? Not so much.

    Comment by Craig Ranapia — October 15, 2010 @ 7:45 am

  6. Wouldn’t it just be easier to pass a law banning Cameron Slater? Yes, yes … I know we aren’t meant to pass bills of attainder any more, but what with the emergency created by the Canterbury earthquake and all, these sorts of constitutional niceties are a luxury we can’t afford.

    Comment by Andrew Geddis — October 15, 2010 @ 7:47 am

  7. Applications for a Bloggers license are being accepted by post at the Ministry of Justice, once your license is approved IRD will register your Gravatar and pseudonym for GST.

    Comment by andy (the other one) — October 15, 2010 @ 7:53 am

  8. Wouldn’t it just be easier to pass a law banning Cameron Slater?

    It would be much easier to issue every Parliamentary staffer with tasers so they can bring down their more excitable lords and masters…

    Comment by Craig Ranapia — October 15, 2010 @ 7:56 am

  9. But Craig … we start with tasers, then a couple of years later it is guns in locked boxes, then a couple of years after that all the staffers will be tooled up. Is that REALLY the future we want?

    Comment by Andrew Geddis — October 15, 2010 @ 8:00 am

  10. You’re no fun, Geddis. No fun at all. And, yes, a future with your more orally challenged MPs twitching in puddles of their own bodily waste is a future I can heartily endorse.

    FYI, people, I’ve given you yet another reason to make sure I never ever hold any position of legislative, civil or military authority. You have been warned.

    Comment by Craig Ranapia — October 15, 2010 @ 8:11 am

  11. Geddis, most gun deaths are a result of accidents caused by inexperienced storage or usage, so if you’re looking to trim the public service using Darwinian means …

    L

    Comment by Lew — October 15, 2010 @ 8:11 am

  12. Craig, yep. Interested to hear the extent to which he puts the boot in on Morning Report.

    L

    Comment by Lew — October 15, 2010 @ 8:14 am

  13. Lew,

    Depends on whether we arm ministerial services or political advisers.

    Also, would make Friday night drinks in the Beehive a bit more exciting …

    Comment by Andrew Geddis — October 15, 2010 @ 8:33 am

  14. Imagine, all the press gallery journos will get to dress up like Margaret Moth (RIP) …

    L

    Comment by Lew — October 15, 2010 @ 8:36 am

  15. Yes, yes … I know we aren’t meant to pass bills of attainder any more, but what with the emergency created by the Canterbury earthquake and all, these sorts of constitutional niceties are a luxury we can’t afford.

    This doesn’t sound like the Diceyan we’ve all come to know and love. If Parliament thinks it’s appropriate, it is.

    Comment by Graeme Edgeler — October 15, 2010 @ 9:00 am

  16. I think we need a “Draw a Simon Power Day” campaign.

    JC

    Comment by JC — October 15, 2010 @ 9:03 am

  17. Wouldn’t it just be easier to pass a law banning Cameron Slater?

    I like the way you think! Especially your suggestion of actually banning Cameron Slater; not just prohibiting him from defaming or breach naming suppression, but actually legislating him out of existence.

    Of course, if you want the easy easy way to effect significant legislative change without going through that pesky legislative process, I know just the man to talk to…

    Comment by Jordan — October 15, 2010 @ 9:05 am

  18. “…Yes, yes … I know we aren’t meant to pass bills of attainder any more…”

    Really? Churchill was terrible keen on the idea for sundry Germans, and no one raised a legal objection. The only thing that stopped him was the Soviets wanted a (show) trial and the Americans (who were the ones really in charge) said their constitution forbade it.

    SInce the Soviet Union doesn’t exist and the United States now indulges in Hitlerian unilateral wars of aggression, I think the signs are quite good for a comeback for bills of attainder…

    Comment by Sanctuary — October 15, 2010 @ 9:18 am

  19. @1 “rootn tootn hootn” in full effect…

    Comment by k.jones — October 15, 2010 @ 10:08 am

  20. I’m fairly sure Slater’s status in already covered under existing statute.

    Mental Health (Compulsory Assessment and Treatment) Act 1992 No 46 (as at 01 July 2009), Public Act
    Part 2 Compulsory treatment orders

    28 Compulsory treatment orders
    (1) Every compulsory treatment order shall be either—
    (a) A community treatment order; or
    (b) An inpatient order; or
    (c) Implicit if you happen to be Cameron Slater—
    and on making a compulsory treatment order the Court shall specify the kind of order it is.

    Comment by Gregor W — October 15, 2010 @ 11:35 am


RSS feed for comments on this post. TrackBack URI

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

The Rubric Theme. Blog at WordPress.com.

Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 408 other followers

%d bloggers like this: