image: shake & stir theatre co (click)
I didn’t want to be the one who ‘broke the news’ that, as the Herald on Sunday‘s Kathryn Powley put it in her story ‘Blogger told to stop‘:
a blogger has been ordered to remove dozens of posts and comments from her website and issued with a restraining order against a lawyer she harassed on-line.
Rob Kidd at the Sunday Star-Times put it this way in his piece ‘Biting blog given last post using stalker law‘:
Judge David Harvey issued blogger Jacqueline Sperling with an indefinite restraining order to protect lawyer Madeleine Flannagan, a rare case in which the Harassment Act has been used to cover blogging.
With respect, I frowned at Rob Kidd’s reference to “a blogger who launched an online campaign to ruin [the lawyer’s] reputation”, since it imputes motivation. He’s also wrong in fact when he states about the 2012 case: “Judge Harvey ordered some posts be taken offline …” No, he did not. The article misstates some other facts too, as I read it.
I was sent a copy of the judgement as soon as it was released, as you’ll read below, and since The Paepae actually features in the decision, I sought and gained Judge Harvey’s permission to quote from it. But I deliberately didn’t want to be ‘first’ with this story. I also wanted to see what ‘posture’ the parties took. Now that the story is ‘out’ in the often-salacious Sunday papers, in news media and being discussed on other websites with far more web-traffic than this one, let me share my response. You may see it as contrarian, but I promise it’s not for the sake of it.
The background — what a difference a year makes
image based on justbkuz.wordpress.com
Last year I wrote about the unsuccessful attempt to obtain a court-sanctioned restraining order against a blogger who had engaged in repeated criticism (some would say denigration) of two other people, also bloggers, one of whom was a lawyer originally engaged to make it all stop.
That application failed for a number of reasons, as canvassed in my post Implications of recent internet gagging attempt and in comments following.
Broadly, as I read it, last year’s action failed because:
(1) The applicants had ‘engaged’ online with the blogger. (Both the original applicant and the lawyer acting for her who joined the legal action after the blogger turned her flamethrower in the lawyer’s direction.) They were also seen by Judge Harvey as robust enough to handle the ‘distress’ they claimed was caused by the blogged comments. The lawyer, in particular, had earlier engaged in online and public debate from a religious standpoint about contentious law reform issues like abortion and civil unions.
(2) The applicants were seen by the Judge at that time to have ‘put themselves in harm’s way’ by seeking out and reading the blogger’s comments.
(3) The Judge considered it a big step under the Bill of Rights Act to interfere with someone’s freedom of expression notwithstanding that expression may amount to harassment, and
(4) The Judge suggested that if defamation was alleged, then a civil prosecution seeking remedies along those lines would be a more appropriate avenue than an application for ‘restraint’ from ‘distress’ under the Harassment Act 1997.
Significantly, in his 2012 decision declining the application for restraint, Judge David Harvey also warned the blogger to cut it out.
Well, she didn’t (partially [feeling] provoked by the lash of opprobrium directed at her, see below). Now he’s ordered her to. As reported above, the Court has issued orders which amount to a comprehensive ‘take down’ and indefinite gagging.
How did we get here?
Apparently a month after Judge Harvey’s dismissal of the 2012 application for a restraining order, the lawyer, still stung by the slings and arrows that led to her failed court action, and citing some new ones published in the aftermath of the decision, launched another application.
[4] On the 10th July 2012 Ms Flannagan commenced these proceedings. It will be noted that the proceedings were filed less than a month after my decision. Those proceedings were based upon subsequent comments that were made by Ms Sperling in respect of which the applicant considered that a restraining order should, under the circumstances, issue. [emphasis added]
So — kind of an instant appeal, but not quite.
Let me say (as I did at the time) some of the statements and slurs against the lawyer were ghastly and professionally challenging. A filtered version of some of those allegations, along with rebuttals in the form of an extended right of reply from the lawyer’s husband and some of her other (mostly anonymous) supporters, appeared in the comment stream of my original post on the 2012 judgement. They are also repeated in Rob Kidd’s article — reflecting the Streisand effect in action.
The blogger also filed complaints with the Law Society against the lawyer and her lawyer in the first case, causing professional issues for them — serious and stressful, no doubt, albeit temporary. [The complaints were dismissed by the NZ Law Society’s Auckland Standards Committee which described them as ‘vexatious’ in their ruling, and, in the lawyer’s case, took the view that the complaint itself was ‘a continuation of the harassment’. In his latest Decision [32], Judge Harvey declined to rule that the Law Society complaint was a ‘specified act of harassment’ saying to do so “could act as a clog upon an individual’s rights to seek redress to the Courts or disciplinary or statutory tribunals to seek relief or redress.”]
The blogger copped a great deal of vile abuse and bullying herself, and suffered gross character assassination (mostly anonymous) elsewhere on the internet. It’s hard to overstate the ferocity with which some who claimed to be upright god-fearing citizens attacked, spat at and pilloried the blogger, dredging up her past and publishing the nastiest of NASTY tirades against her — let me stress again: anonymously — in what can only be seen as a protracted effort to discredit her.
Now the lawyer’s reprise of her Harassment Act application has worked its way through the court system, this time without her openly ‘engaging’ with the blogger (indeed, the lawyer appears to have removed material about the dispute from her own website) and offering the court what the Judge called ‘a large amount of information’. And this time the lawyer represented herself:
[6] In support of her application she filed an affidavit dated 10 July 2012 and in addition has filed affidavits dated 7 September 2012, 12 March 2013 and 13 May 2013. She also relies upon an affidavit of her husband Mathew Flannagan dated 12 July 2012. [emphasis added]
[20] The affidavits that have been filed by Ms Flannagan contain a large amount of information. Essentially that information can be divided into the following categories:
(a) Actions done by the respondent on her blog.
(b) The circumstances of the applicant and her particular position which gives added “sting” to the comments made by the respondent.
(c) The surrounding context of the applicants activities and
(d) The nature of the distress caused to the applicant.
The blogger, on the other hand, continued to blog but did not participate at all in the new court case.
[7] No steps have been taken by Ms Sperling. She has filed neither an opposition nor affidavits in reply. She has not appeared at any hearing.
That strikes me as a shame.
What could have genuinely been a landmark New Zealand court ruling about restricting internet/new media freedoms seems to me flawed by the total lack of defence offered — giving the case an appearance of being one-sided or unbalanced. That’s my layman’s view. Note that Judge David Harvey, regarded as NZ’s ‘Internet Judge’, sat on both matters. I respect him, as I have said before.
A public flogging in Iran
image: http://undhimmi.com (click)
According to his judgment released to the parties last week (4/6/13) the blogger has now been ordered to remove (by my count) 26 specified blog posts and about 50 specified comments (not all by her) from her website, and to delete from it any mention of the lawyer’s name or anything that could identify her, even by inference.
As I read it, she is also restrained — indefinitely restrained, until released by order of the court — from publishing any mention of the lawyer or anything which may identify the lawyer or her family on her blog or any website she controls.
Does that seem like a good thing to you? Well I guess it depends where you stand. Let’s discuss it.
What has happened in effect is that the blogger has been sentenced to a public flogging, with her reputation (and photo) once again dragged through the Sunday papers, news and other websites, while her right of reply is severely curtailed. Yes, she could talk to the media, but given their history of exploitatively, pruriently invading her privacy, why the hell would she? Who would advise her to trust a reporter? Not me. (And I say that as one.)
Disclosure: The lawyer sent me a copy of the decision (apparently within 24 hours of receiving it herself) with a request that, as a result, I ‘remove material’ from ThePaepae.com
image: laughingsquid.com (click)
But … what about freedom of speech?
Judge Harvey reported his wrestle with the Bill of Rights Act and freedom of expression issues (even referring to the Law Commission’s recommendations-in-progress on digital media) like this:
[75] In making the order that I have which, although it is described as a restraining order, falls within the ambit of a “take down” order contemplated by the Law Commission in its Ministerial Paper Harmful Digital Communications I have given careful consideration to Ms Sperling’s rights of free expression under s. 14 of the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act 1990. I have weighed each post and considered whether, in terms of content and the competing interests of the parties, the removal of the post would amount to a justifiable limitation upon Ms Sperling’s free expression rights.
[76] I further order that Ms Sperling be restrained from publishing Ms Flannagan’s name or any material that may directly or by inference lead to her identification or any other details about her or her family, explicit or implied, on her blog WonderfulNow or any other on-line forum accessible by the public which she can moderate.
[77] Ms Flannagan also seeks an order that Ms Sperling publish a retraction of certain matters. I am not prepared to make such an order. I consider it beyond the scope of a restraining order and compromises the integrity of the future restrain on publication of material regarding Ms Flannagan that I have made in the preceding paragraph.
The Duration of the Order
[78] Under s 21 the Court may make a restraining order for such period either longer or shorter than one year as the Court considers necessary to protect the applicant from further harassment. Normally an order subsisting for one year is sought but in this case Ms Flannagan seeks an order lasting longer. She sought one lasting for 10 years in her application but extended it for an indefinite period along the lines of the order made in favour Mr Spearrit (sic) in his proceedings in the Manukau District Court.[79] A restraining order by its nature interferes with an individual’s liberty in a free and democratic society. In some cases freedom of movement may be the subject of interference by a restraining order. The freedom to communicate within an individual may be the subject of a restraining order. In the context of blogs, as I mentioned in my decision of 15th June 2012, there are implications for the freedom of expression pursuant to the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act 1990. In considering the nature and duration of the order one must take into account whether or not an order and its duration are justifiable limitations upon the guarantee of freedom of expression.
[80] In this case serious aspersions have been made against Ms Flannagan’s character which are causing her distress and will continue to do so. Those aspersions will probably last throughout her professional life if allowed to continue. The “take down orders” that I have made have taken into account the importance of interfering with Ms Sperling’s freedom of speech as little as possible but to obtain sufficient relief for Ms Flannagan. As in all cases of this nature it is necessary weigh the interests of parties.
[81] If Ms Sperling’s behaviour had been in “real space” and her communications been in the nature of letters or pamphlets posted upon a wall an order restraining her from doing so in the future for a set period of time would be realistic. However the new environment of the Internet has qualities associated with digital communications technologies that are paradigmatically different from those of the pre-digital paradigm intrude.
[82] Like the printing press which brought with it characteristics that were not present in scribal communications, digital communications technologies contain with them characteristics or qualities that are peculiar to the medium and underlie the message. One of those qualities is that of persistence of information summed up in the phrase “the document that does not die”. Whilst phenomena such as link rot or the takedown of web sites may provide a form of immediate relief, traces of the information will always be present especially if some of that information has been re-communicated or alternatively stored on the Internet archive.
[83] A restraining order will have a mitigating effect of this quality in the sense that by removing the information it will no longer be available for search engines and consequently any ranking will decline on search sites such as Google. I recognise, as does Ms Flannagan, that the “persistence of information” quality of Internet material will not remove the information entirely. A further problem is that with a limited term order, say for one year, it would be perfectly capable for Ms Sperling to repast the information again upon the expiry of the order and the whole process would commence anew. The problems suffered by Ms Flannagan would once again rear their head. In this respect it seems to me that there is justification for an order that would subsist for more than a year and the restraining or take down orders that I have made in respect of the various pages identified in the previous section should subsist until further order of the Court. In that way if Ms Sperling considers that there is justification for reposting the material she may apply for a discharge of the order under s 23 of the Harassment Act or for variation thereof under s 22.
Further, Judge Harvey ordered costs against the blogger…
[84] Miss (sic) Flannagan seeks costs. Under normal circumstances a self represented litigant is not entitled to costs but pursuant to Rule 4.17 of the District Court Rules 2009 a solicitor who is a party to a proceeding and acts in person is entitled to solicitors costs.
[I’ve left out paras 85 to 88 detailing why he declined Ms Flannagan’s application for costs of the previous failed 2012 action.]
[89] However Miss (sic) Flannagan is entitled to costs in respect of the current proceeding and I am prepared to award costs on a 2B scale pursuant to schedules 2 and 3 of the District Court Rules 2009…
…Total $9,010.80[90] I order costs accordingly and that sum to be paid by the respondent to the applicant.
My personal view: This is a big deal.
‘Judgement of Solomon’ — Giuseppe Cades, 1750 (source: bible-people.info – click)
So, is this how it is in New Zealand now?: If the ‘target’ of derogatory comments is determined enough, and can convince a Judge of their ‘distress’ at material about them published on the internet and that such (untrue?) comments and criticism may have a professionally deleterious effect on them, they can, eventually, gain a take-down and wide-ranging indefinite gagging order like this.
I note that Judge Harvey rejected the lawyer’s overreaching in two instances — claiming costs for the previous failed court action, and seeking a statement of retraction as part of her application for a restraining order. That said, there’s no doubt the lawyer had a significant ‘win’, undefended as it was.
But I find the whole thing chilling and unsettling. (You are, of course, entitled to your own opinion. From what I’ve read, it’s clear the lawyer, her husband and their supporters see it differently. Naturally.)
We can’t be certain, but reading the decision, it seems inescapable to me that this was a case where the Judge formed a view of the comparative ‘character’ of the parties. (See para [80] above).viz. The respondent — who offered NO defence, made NO submissions, and took NO PART in the proceedings, versus the applicant — who gave him “a large amount of information” with multiple affidavits swearing to the nature of her distress … and about whom he (amusingly, if you actually know any lawyers socially) says in the last sentence of his paragraph [42]:
[42] … the use of that information and the post by Ms Sperling clearly continues the pattern of behaviour that she adopted alleging “con” activities by Ms Flannagan. It should also be noted that Ms Flannagan has completed a law degree, passed her professionals and has been admitted as a Barrister and Solicitor of the High Court and as such must be found to be a person of good character. [emphasis added]
I don’t know the blogger, Ms Sperling. I’ve never met her, not even spoken to her. We’ve corresponded, and I’ve read her comments here at ThePaepae.com and occasionally on her own blog.
She seems to me to be an intelligent person, given to passions, enthusiasms, fixations and the urge to ‘express’ — like most bloggers. She’s been through a firestorm of stress in her personal life over some years. Some of it has been dragged needlessly into the public eye (and that not of her doing) due to what I see as little more than prurient interest by some in the media. But by the look of it, she’s a fighter and she’s rebuilding from her previous challenges and set-backs, and trying to improve her life. I don’t whitewash her actions but I have empathy for her. As I do for the lawyer.
There’s no question in my mind that much of the blogger’s ‘output’ was tit-for-tat reactive. A good deal of it, she says, was in response to disgusting online attacks and abuse of her — much of it FOUL and published by anonymous ‘commenters’, as I observed — in the name of ‘truth’ and ‘justice’.
A supporter of the lawyer, using the pseudonym ‘Scrubone’, himself engaged in a lengthy vitriolic campaign of cyber-bullying and name-calling, flinging the blogger’s past at her and repeatedly calling her a ‘liar’, ‘insane’ ‘crazy’, etc. I would call his ugly course of action ‘harassment’ by any standard. To my mind Scrubone’s deeds were every bit as foul as those of which he accused the blogger in this case. Perhaps worse. It was ‘disgraceful spittle’, as I told him and his pseudonymous mates when they dipped into the comment stream here on last year’s post. Although after our interchange he went back and amended some of his posts, I observe that Scrubone continues to actively malign and demonise her to this day.
‘Now you’re just somebody that I used to know.’ — Gotye and Kimbra
How do you disengage when things are broken?
This episode has probably been both a symptom and a cause. In my observation, the blogger did not respond well to what she saw as attempts to silence and intimidate her before this. (It’s a challenge. I understand that.) As I said in discussion about the first case:
Threatening lawyers’ letters are by their nature an aggressive act, in my opinion. Their deployment is almost always bound to raise the temperature, however carefully written.
But there’s an old saying: ‘If all you have is a hammer, everything looks like a nail.’
I have no doubt of the ‘harassment’ effect of repeated legal threats, correspondence by email and text, then the stream of affidavits, claims, statements and counter statements that follow filing an application with the court. Litigation can be akin to war with a suit on. For those who’ve not engaged in it, let me tell you, litigation is like being hunted by a predator. It’s very stressful.
Some people, including a male solicitor engaged by the lawyer in the first failed application for restraint, and the lawyer’s original (female) co-applicant, have apparently approached the educational institute where the blogger is studying, seeking to ‘raise concerns’ and curtail her studies. These same people complain about the effects of the blogger’s actions on their careers. Ironic. (I also see that as abandoning the high ground.)
I have met the lawyer Madeleine Flannagan and her husband Matthew. They appear to be sincere and decent people who, it seems to me, struggle with the two-edged sword of themselves living in the public eye in a small way — debating public morality and religious apologetics — and wanting to be seen as leaders in the Christian community and suitable candidates for financial support from that sector. They appear to me to be acting to vindicate themselves.
I said this last year to the blogger about the lawyer’s initial entry to this fracas:
It seems clear they were trying to PUT SOMETHING RIGHT, as they saw it. They were responding to your words and actions.
I strongly believe that’s the case.
… In my opinion, no-one goes to the lengths Mrs Flannagan, in particular, went to just out of spite. I just don’t believe that of her. Not at all.
Time to leave it, Jackie. Disengage.
If I may quote Voltaire … “A long dispute means both parties are wrong.”
It’s also inescapable that some of the blogger’s comments and statements were offensive (reactive or not) and her ‘campaign’ of criticism and denigration protracted and potentially threatening the lawyer’s reputation and livelihood. The lawyer faced the dilemma: if she left the comments and her unsuccessful Harassment Act application unchallenged, what impact might that have on her future career and employment prospects? Yet if she pursued redress and vindication, as she has, what impact would that have? Tricky.
You may wonder why I tend towards a contrary view to Judge Harvey, whom I admire. Let me explain.
It’s not just about feeling squeamish. I worry at the extraordinary censorship the judgement orders and its possible effect on MY OWN CIVIL LIBERTIES — specifically my right to free speech.
Reading the decision — which was thrust at me, as I disclosed above — I learned that there exists another indefinite restraining order in relation to someone else. (There’s the ‘precedent’ if there is one.)
Well, let me say this: There are people whom I’ve repeatedly criticised, even castigated — and whose actions and track records I’ve catalogued here on ThePaepae.com. I’m sure some of them would love to see this website and its content ‘swept clean’ and me barred from uttering their names, in this manner.
I’m not being fanciful. As I detailed in my post The peasants are revolting and elsewhere, the operators of the PropertyTalk discussion forum were intimidated by repeated ‘threats of legal threats’ into expunging whole threads of genuine ‘consumer warning’-type information about property spruikers preying on the public. Substantial censorship occurred —ex-Sponging, I called it, after the name of one hyperbolically sold subdivision whose promoters were highlighted in a discussion thread before that was ‘removed for consideration’ never to return. Likewise, the Richmastery thread — containing hundreds of posts about those now-bankrupt spruikers, their questionable claims and dubious marketing methods — was removed from view on PropertyTalk in a ‘clean up’ operation.
In a very real sense, that censorship-under-pressure by the operators at PropertyTalk was a trigger for me to set up ThePaepae.com, as a platform for publishing such important things and where carefully stated information and warnings would persist.
Coping with smears
Around the time I was detailing the questionable marketing methods of another bunch of internet marketing whiz-kids, a series of blogs (not blog posts — actual blogs) sprung up on the internet using my name and a series of unflattering keywords in an apparent attempt to smear me (see: Internet ninja cowboys … spoofing revisited). Is that reputation-endangering ‘harassment’? Well, yes.
But I bear the scars and bite-marks from those operators and others. I stand in the scorn of their sock-puppets. Those spruikers needed to be exposed.
My own approach when garbage is thrown at me is to address it directly, then go on ‘building’ my own reputation by contributing useful, positive material and interactions … which I trust the search engines will find more relevant. That’s not a path the lawyer in this case chose to follow, evidently. We choose to differ.
So, as you can imagine, given that background, I gave a very hard look at the ‘request’ I received from the lawyer in this case — that I ‘remove material’ from The Paepae. I’m disinclined to accede to any such broad request partly because I think she and her supporters have made substantial use of a right of reply here at The Paepae.
Put yourself in the blogger’s shoes: How many court cases (and appeals — even de facto appeals like this one with a self-representing lawyer) would you fight before you’d say,‘Meh, I don’t need this’ and get on with your life? The trouble is that certain people [snip] seem to be taking action to sabotage the blogger’s future — as noted above, citing their ‘concerns’ about her suitability for her new career. Such actions move from ‘seeking vindication’ to bitter vindictiveness in my book.
image: ISPreview.co.uk – click
While I agree with Judge Harvey about the challenges we all face in the age of “the document that does not die”, his order prevents the blogger from (ever?) writing her side of this online, — even to the extent of saying that she herself FELT harassed, threatened and intimidated by the lawyer’s relentless communications: emails and texts, the stream of legal papers and affidavits accusing the blogger of all sorts of woeful actions and character deficiencies. That stuff has an emotional impact on non-lawyer people, believe me, I know.
And now, I guess, she’ll face demands for payment of ‘costs’.
As I read the decision (and I’m not a lawyer) the blogger is restrained from a right of freedom of expression online — or where she has moderation power. Would Judge Harvey similarly rule against a book spelling out her side of the dispute? Or a first-person account published in a newspaper or a magazine? Do you begin to see the problem?
I would NOT like to see the ‘take-down’, ‘harmful digital communications’ approach used in this case become widely-used. It seems draconian to me, personally, even allowing Judge Harvey’s careful consideration of the ‘weight of the interests of both parties’.
You may not agree with the blogger or her actions. You may see her activities as reckless, malicious vindictive and personally/professionally damaging toward the lawyer. Certainly Judge Harvey seemed to perceive them so, but let me ask you, even without allowing for her real sense of provocation:
Is this the way to deal with people who act that way? Really?
Perhaps it does seem right to you. For myself, reading this latest judgement in the context of the one last year, observing how the lawyer has learned from her previous defeat in court and adapted her approach, reminded me of the closing words of one of my authors Olly Newland in his book Lost Property …
“Remember that all too often justice comes through the cheque book. If you can afford the huge costs of a court battle you are far more likely to get a fair go. If you cannot pay you will probably miss out. Tough luck.” — from ‘Lost Property — the Crash of 1987… and the aftershock’ by Olly Newland. (p158 second edition Empower Leaders Publishing 2007)
‘If you can afford the huge costs …’ Olly says. Well, yes.
And what if you’re facing a lawyer representing herself, as in this case?
Another of my authors, accountant Mark Withers (Property Tax – A New Zealand Investor’s Guide) tells the story of a dispute he was in with the Inland Revenue Department on behalf of his clients. He informed the tax inspector they intended to take the department to court over the issue. “That’s all right”, said the IRD man. “We’ve got deeper pockets than you. We’ll just keep appealing it ’til you run out of money.”
As I mentioned above, the lawyer faced a dilemma. She made her choice. Using her professional expertise and better making her case for ‘distress’ this time, she outgunned her ‘opponent’ (who offered no legal defence) and she got her result: the indefinite suppression of someone else’s right to freedom of expression.
Is that really a ‘win’?
Who will speak for you?
Martin Niemöller, a leader of the anti-Nazi Confessing Church, he spent the last seven years of Nazi rule in concentration camps. United States, October 4, 1946.
pic: US Holocaust Memorial Museum
Let me draw my (lengthy, sorry) comments to a close with this intense and discomforting poem from Martin Niemöller cited by the US Holocaust Musuem and others around the world:
First they came for the Socialists, and I did not speak out —
Because I was not a Socialist.
Then they came for the Trade Unionists, and I did not speak out —
Because I was not a Trade Unionist.
Then they came for the Jews, and I did not speak out —
Because I was not a Jew.
Then they came for me —
and there was no one left to speak for me.
Then they came for the bloggers —
– P
Facts are stated to the best of my knowledge and commentary is my honest opinion. Corrections or clarifications are always welcome by email. Comments are open, but will be moderated in this case, given the history. I will not host attempts at character assassination.
– Best wishes, Peter Aranyi © 2013 All rights reserved.
UPDATE 19 June: Judging from comments posted elsewhere, it seems Matthew Flannagan has taken unkindly to my inclusion of Pastor Niemöller’s poem, perceiving (wrongly) that I intended an ugly comparison between his wife’s actions and the Nazis. That wasn’t why I quoted it, as I explained to him today:
@Matthew Flannagan: I understand where you’re coming from with reference to the Niemöller poem. It is discomforting, awful, to think our actions _could be seen that way_. I didn’t cite it to offend you. I actually quoted it to express MY OWN CONFLICT which is: ‘Why should I speak up for this woman when so many “good people” seem to want to vilify her?’ Gulp.
This is a complicated and fraught matter as I think Judge Harvey’s two differing decisions reflect. I’ve struggled with it, hence the somewhat meandering, sometimes double-sided nature of my comments. I’m sure glad I wasn’t the Judge!
But I don’t feel I’ve been dishonest, I don’t think my readers are stupid, I don’t feel I’ve been unfair or maligned you or your wife, and I am (as I told Madeleine in my 7/6/13 email) willing to discuss this with you and her in person again if you wish.
As for you dismissing my honest opinion as ‘a crock’ — well, thanks for reading it Matt, I guess.
– Peter 19/6/13
[…] June 2013 — There have been developments on this. See: Is this what we want? Internet ‘take down’ and indefinite gagging orders? – The decision in a recent court case involving allegations of harassment by blog post is […]
By coincidence I talked briefly with a friend last night (let’s call him Mitch) who has been enduring the stress of heavy threats of litigation over the last couple of months.
Mitch told me that he’d recently discussed his situation with another lawyer he knows who occasionally moves in the same circles as the solicitor who’s been sending him the hot and heavy letters.
To his dismay, Mitch’s contact reported that he’d observed a semi-public burst of bravado from the solicitor acting for the potential plaintiff — along the lines of ‘Yeah, we’re definitely suing that bastard Mitch!’
Mitch’s lawyer friend was apparently all-very-interested in discussing the finer details the dispute and the opening skirmishes etc. Apparently he seemed energised by the cut-and-thrust of the whole thing — until Mitch said to him something like:
“Hey mate, this may well be of academic interest to you. But this my life we’re talking about. It’s gut-wrenching.”
As I noted in my post above, legal correspondence is often by its nature or designed to be intimidating and threatening.
Some lawyers seem to forget (or underestimate?) the emotional impact of their dealings with ordinary folk. The threatening messages they routinely send to non-lawyer people can cause enormous stress.
Which can lead to poor decisions.
– P
Very well done, Peter. You’ve distilled a complex and drawn-out process into some issues that we all need to consider, not only regarding freedom of speech but the huge imbalance of lawyers and the wealthy using the law.
Thanks for your support Graeme. I do struggle with it, as I said to Matthew Flannagan.
The consensus, especially among my Christian friends, is that Judge Harvey did the right thing, that the blogger had overstepped her right to free speech with her ‘campaign’ against the lawyer.
And I agree to a point. Something had to happen.
But as I wrote to one of my critics yesterday, the blogger’s actions need to be seen in context:
“My main point is this: Ms Sperling’s regrettable actions did not occur in a vacuum. You seem to take pride in yourself, anonymous Scrubone, that you feel you have used more careful language — sophistry — in your protracted cyber-bullying campaign against her, and that you didn’t start it until ‘two days after’ some post she published in response to the first judgement.
That ignores the stream of incendiary abuse, bile and accusations which had been directed toward Ms Sperling through various channels (including comments submitted to her blog, and elsewhere) in the long lead up to, and during that court case. Anonymous Scrubone, you’re just a part of the venomous clobbering machine that has relentlessly kicked and spat at her, mostly anonymously. I wouldn’t be proud of that.”
I don’t know any one mentioned here, Peter, but may I offer for discussion Jesus’ warning to us all regarding your correspondent, Scrubone?
“This is the judgement [of God], that the light has come into the world, and men loved the darkness rather than the light, because their deeds were evil. For everyone who does evil hates the light, and does not come to the light for fear that his deeds will be exposed. But he who practices the truth comes to the light, so that his deeds may be clearly seen as having been done in God.”
(John 3:19-21)
As I understand it, this means anonymity is usually, not always but usually, a cloak for evil. Anonymous comments are therefore usually to be discarded as malicious.
While I love the internet’s providing us access to further enlightenment on almost anything, I hate the way it also propagates and encourages darkness.
Wow Graeme.
I’ve never seen that passage of scripture in that light before (if you’ll pardon the play on words). Thank you for sharing it. It’s pretty harsh!
I’ve said since I started blogging at The Paepae (‘Potshots from behind a mask of anonymity are, by definition, cheap‘) those who choose to conceal their identity have an obligation to be more restrained in their online remarks, not less. Their mask (like all masks) reduces their accountability.
Sadly, it doesn’t work that way, even when people like anonymous Scrubone profess to love God and their fellow man. Indeed, I’ve had enough of anonymous Scrubone and his nasty, twisted vendetta.
Whatever agenda he is hiding in the shadows (or darkness?) and whoever anonymous Scrubone is when he’s not bullying a traumatized woman already facing challenges for which he appears to have no empathy or understanding, I don’t care.
Yeah, I know he feels he’s standing up for his friends. I understand that. It may have started that way, but the claws of his fixation seem to have crippled his discernment. He has become toxic.
Anonymous Scrubone seems to me to be someone who just cannot conceive of people who see things differently to him as being just as honest and sincere in their views as he is.
Judging by his own words, in his hate-filled worldview he believes only willful liars disagree with him. Indeed, over on his website he’s now added me to the list of people he repeatedly calls a liar. How disgusting.
This is my last message to him, posted today 20/6/13:
We’ve reached the end of the road anonymous Scrubone.
I made a simple, unequivocal statement of fact — that I have not met or talked with Ms Sperling, although we have corresponded.
You questioned that statement with an insinuation, at which I confirmed that what I said is actually true.
Now you say you don’t believe me.
Good grief.
That goes beyond us taking a different view of this case.
It seems to me your self-righteous rage at my disagreeing with you; calling you to task on your ugly, protracted, anonymous hate campaign (which you see as somehow ‘noble’ and continue to this day); and your fatuous word games e.g. ‘Yes, I called her crazy and nuts, but not insane’ has blinded you.
re your ‘source’: I’m aware that Cameron Slater last year falsely told the first applicant, Ms Brown (and probably Madeleine & Matt too) that I had been seen ‘conversing’ with Jacqueline at his cycle race against Trevor Mallard. As I told Ms Brown at the time: No, that is incorrect. We’ve (still) never met, never spoken. We can all speculate at Cameron’s motivations for his false statements.
Anonymous Scrubone, I can understand — and empathise with — an elevated sense of right and wrong driving your actions in this ‘dispute’. I think I have a lick of Asperger too, as I have disclosed: http://www.thepaepae.com/is-there-a-‘whistle-blower’-personality-type/163/
But you’ve lost the plot.
I write, broadcast and publish in my own name. I have nothing to prove to a malicious sock puppet like you vacuously shrieking ‘Liar!’ from behind a pseudonym.
– Peter
Well mate … i have seen some “darkness” exemplified in some of your comments at times … however my perception of “darkness” may not be yours.
And which god are we talking about and where is the proof of that God and indeed the irrefutable evidence of same … and what is defined as light and what is defined as darkness.
Why do you (and what is your justification for doing so) understand (emphasis) that anonymity is usually a cloak for evil. Maybe the anonymous are afraid of the propensity of others who have more power and influence taking vengeance .. or “utu” to use the vernacular.
A thought maybe …
Thanks for the thought, Ivan, because I offered Jesus’ comment for discussion. I don’t claim any monopoly on defining darkness as I think we all know what He meant, don’t we? e.g. Conrad’s “Heart of Darkness”?
Re God, I experience Him as revealed in the Jewish (& some Gentile) Scriptures – loving and just. Re irrefutable proof, I was taught in Philosophy 101 that there is no such thing; all knowledge (esp. scientific) begins from a belief that is supported by sufficient (but never absolute) evidence. Accordingly, I offer no apology for having to believe/trust as it’s the basis for all rational thought.
Re anonymity, I agree with you. I say ‘usually’ because most anonymous comments in arguments are malicious and abusive. I have no problem with anonymity for defence or for good deeds; it’s only when it’s a hiding place for attacking, denigrating, slandering others that I think it’s cowardly.
Is guerilla warfare in the service of noble aims therefore Evil and “darkness” … or are you advocating we all be really transparent and take it up the [snip] (metaphorically) from oppressors and bullies …
Peter thinks he is a nice guy … but sometimes he may be an oppressive elitist baron of the moneyed/property-owning aristocracy for instance. And you could well be a prince of the church … extorting revenues from those in fear of eternal damnation…. is there a good margin these days in “indulgences” (with apologies to G Chaucer .. the Pardoners Tale) … you have a distinctly mediaeval feel to you … but hopefully all the modern conveniences .. (chamberpots are such a bitch …)
Sure thing Ivan, but when I AM an ‘oppressive elitist baron of the moneyed/property-owning aristocracy’ I do it in my own name! 🙂 (or the family trust’s.)
Yes, we’ve discussed before, sometimes there are noble reasons for wearing a mask. But if, say, YOU were to come after me in nasty abusive terms over your interpretation of my behaviour, I would want to face my accuser.
Your intolerance of religion is, of course, once again noted. Ho hum. – P
Talk to me anytime Pete …i was pulling your leg about oppressive and barons … you have always struck me as a nice guy …so has the contributor Graeme.
Remember clearly … its all too easy to treat this forum as a conclusive reality … it simply isnt.
Cheers ITT
Hey Ivan, zero hard feelings on this side.
Sorry I was making a (far too oblique) reference to anonymous clobberers — not you — some of that ilk have been taking up my attention lately.
We’re good. And you’re right about Graeme. A very good man.
-P
No worries mate … I am not anti religion … just that i intensely dislike people making statements in the name of people who possibly lived a couple of thousand years ago claiming some nonfactual standing as a messiah or saviour … and a jewish or muslim deity who isnt proved to have ever existed … as it they were established fact. It’s so National Party … and neo liberal to do so. George Bush Jr and Reagan believed in them … and thats enough to put me off for life.
Again, I have no problem with secret legitimate warfare but I loathe the ‘modern’ propensity for guerillas using human shields.
Re extortion in the church, my book “Eating Sacred Cows” was burnt by one prince:-)
Re medieval, I’m afraid my goal is a thousand years earlier – I want to be, and the church to be, like Jesus in the 1st Century. As I see it, we’ve gone wrong in every generation since then.
Not just lawyers or the wealthy … but also the influential .. in all streams of thinking and society .. perhaps
Hi Peter,
You might recall that I briefly commented on your last post on this subject, at the time of the initial Flannagan & Brown v Sperling decision.
When I learned that Ms Flannagan was intending to pursue a second ‘bite of the cherry’, I must say I was surprised, as I didn’t see how Ms Sperling’s actions following the initial judgment could lead to a Judge finding for Ms Flannagan in Round Two. Essentially, my view of Judge Harvey’s decision was that Ms Flannagan and Ms Brown had met every part of the Harassment Act threshold except one – the objective test relating to distress. His Honour found that although the applicants were distressed (thus satisfying the subjective element of the distress test), they were big enough and ugly enough (as I put it in my original comment to you) to have fended for themselves, given their previous excursions into the online world.
To me, for Ms Flannagan to have succeeded in Round Two, His Honour would surely have needed to find that something had changed in terms of the objective test for distress – eg. that an ordinary person in Ms Flannagan’s position would feel distress at Ms Sperling’s actions. But how could anything be said to have changed? Yes, Ms Sperling may have replaced old posts and comments back on her blog, and yes, she may have added further fuel to the fire with her additional commentary (mostly ill-advised…). However, Judge Harvey had already previously found that a series of some quite nasty posts and other actions by Ms Sperling would not have caused distress to a person in Ms Flannagan’s position. Ms Sperling’s subsequent actions do not appear to have upped the ante to a point where I would have envisaged the Judge’s view on the objective test to have changed.
Nonetheless, judgment has been granted in Ms Flannagan’s favour…
And I certainly have some concern regarding the scope of the Orders made. Not because the law of defamation could have been used in place of that of harassment – as I see it, Ms Flannagan was perfectly justified in seeking the restraint of Ms Sperling harassment, and an action for defamation does not protect against further actions against the harassed party.
My concern is with the blanket nature of the Orders. Ms Flannagan’s name shall not be mentioned by Ms Sperling on her blog, nor even details pertaining to her that may give rise to people being able to identify her – whether such mentions or insinuations would be considered “specific acts” under the Harassment Act or not.
In my opinion, that goes well beyond the scope of the usual conditions (special or standard) of a Restraining Order. As you have pointed out in your above post, Ms Sperling is effectively prevented from posting any mitigation of her position, whereas Ms Flannagan and her supporters have carte blanche to ridicule and demonise her online as they see fit.
The role of a Restraining Order in these circumstances should be to prevent speech that fits the definition of harassment under the Harassment Act (just as speech or actions in the “real” world are only generally prohibited by a Restraining Order if they would fall under the definition of a “specified act” in the Act) – the Order that Ms Flannagan has obtained prevents Ms Sperling from even mentioning Ms Flannagan’s name, even if that mention is entirely neutral (or even positive!).
I note that Ms Sperling has been foolish enough to mention the new judgment in her latest blog post. I have no doubt that the blog post will be referred to the Police, despite it being fairly innocuous in the grand scheme of things (certainly, one would surely struggle to consider it to be of a nature that would cause distress to Ms Flannagan). And that’s the scary thing – Ms Sperling’s blog post could very well be considered to be a breach of the Restraining Order, which is a criminal offence. Should the Court really be criminalising the actions of someone who merely blogs that they are sick of Court proceedings and do not agree with the Court’s decision?
Hi Jay, thanks for sharing your thoughts about this unsettling case.
Yes, as I’ve written, I’m troubled by the extraordinary broadness of the gagging orders. Just as you say, on the surface of it, it seems the blogger is so comprehensively restrained she can’t say ANYTHING.
You say:
“Should the Court really be criminalising the actions of someone who merely blogs that they are sick of Court proceedings and do not agree with the Court’s decision?”
Golly, do you really think that reference on her blog to being in hospital as the story about the judgement ‘broke’, and her reaction to that controversy etc … and a link to my post (above) breaches Judge Harvey’s orders? Would that be his intention? Wow.
So what should she do, Jay? How would you advise her? Pull it all down? Wait for a policeman to knock on her door?
—
The lawyer’s supporters have, indeed, continued their demonisation of the (gagged) blogger.
I referred to my waiting to observe the ‘posture’ the parties adopted before I made any comment about this judgement. I didn’t have to wait long to see the lawyer’s husband and the anonymous attack blogger stooping to tag-team wrestling, trampling her at Kiwiblog in response to other commenters raising some of the same issues that so disquiet you — and me.
Sadly, they seem incapable of arguing the issues without unleashing a tirade of personal abuse against her … and, indeed, turning on me, publicly and repeatedly calling me a liar and other things, too. Ghastly.
– P
Hi Peter,
Unfortunately, on a strict reading of Judge Harvey’s orders, yes, I do think Ms Sperling’s most recent blog post breaches His Honour’s orders. Whether a Court would be inclined to read the Orders that way, or indeed whether Police would even bother to lay a charge, is a different story, because of course interpretation is a many-edged sword…
I think it’s unlikely that Police would waste resources on prosecuting any such complaint (although the complaint is still likely to be lodged, given the history of these proceedings). And if Police did lay a charge, I would sincerely hope that any Judge would think twice before laying waste to the Bill of Rights by convicting Ms Sperling.
Nonetheless, it is somewhat frightening that Ms Sperling could conceivably find herself in that situation in the first place. I don’t support what she posted about Ms Flannagan (or indeed what she first posted about Ms Brown), but to arrive at the point where she could conceivably be criminalised for a relatively innocent blog post regarding her (understandable) reaction to receiving a Court judgment and almost $10,000 costs order is somewhat chilling.
Would that be Judge Harvey’s intention? I would hope not. Like you, I have a lot of respect for His Honour and can only assume that, like all of us, he is only human and has failed to fully think through the possible consequences of his Orders.
So what should she do? I would advise her to pull her blog post immediately, and make no reference, implied or otherwise, to Ms Flannagan whatsoever. Because, as nauseous as the prospect may be, Ms Sperling will certainly find herself the subject of Police complaints until she does.
Her only other option that I can see is appealing (or making an application for the discharge of the Order), based on Ms Flannagan’s glee in shopping the story to the media (after all, how can a Restraining Order be necessary when the applicant and her husband don’t seem to mind discussing the details with the media, safe in the knowledge that Ms Sperling won’t dare open her mouth?). Yet, should she bother risking that step when Ms Flannagan, if successful, will only claim further costs as a solicitor representing herself? I’d argue that discretion should possibly become the better part of valour, unless one really wanted to become a martyr on the cross of internet freedom and free speech…
Personally, if I were Ms Sperling, I would simply walk away, knowing that, at the very least, the Streisand Effect has revealed to the world that Ms Flannagan once stole a horse… But then, I’m not the one with a costs award against me, so Ms Sperling might see things in a different light…
And yes, Ms Flannagan’s supporters continue to show some rather nasty colours. As I’ve said, I don’t support Ms Sperling’s actions (in fact, I think she has on occasion been particularly savage and vindictive in her attacks on Ms Flannagan, Ms Brown and others), but that in no way excuses those who have lined up to (often anonymously) engage in character assassination against her. As it happens, I do believe that Ms Sperling is doing her best to turn her life around, with her course of study, and I wish her the very best in that endeavour.
As to the personal attacks against your good self, I can only observe that I have always found your blog to be rather more fair in its content and editorial policy than most of its ilk. ‘Ghastly’ is an accurate term for the actions of anonymous keyboard warriors such as Scrubone (and yes, I accept the irony that I am not posting under my full name! I prefer the peace of online anonymity, as hypocritical as I may be…).
“So what should she do? I would advise her to pull her blog post immediately, and make no reference, implied or otherwise, to Ms Flannagan whatsoever. Because, as nauseous as the prospect may be, Ms Sperling will certainly find herself the subject of Police complaints until she does.”
Hi Jay, thanks for this.
I privately alerted the blogger to your 5:49 post — and your prediction of a police complaint in response to her innocuous ‘Been in hospital’ post which, it seems to me, did little more than acknowledge the (public) fact that a Judgement against her had been the subject of Sunday newspaper reports.
I saw she took it down immediately afterwards. So, thanks.
Is this what we’ve come to?
– P
I hope you meant ‘police complaint’ rather than ‘police compliant’ 🙂
Very glad to read Jay’s (expert?) opinion.
Cheers, fixed.
Gives me a chance to quote David Lange on the police, when they were massed on the forecourt of Parliament demonstrating for a pay rise:
“These people twist arms for a living.”
So true. That’s why we have a Bill of Rights Act, eh Graeme?
– P
I think you have overlooked the real damage a determined blogger can do to the reputation of a professional. I speak as a GP who has had his reputation malignantly damaged by verbal gossip in a small community. This gossip severely damaged my private practise, reducing my patient throughput and income by nearly a half. I fully understand why Ms Flannagan would want to defend herself against some of the things Ms Sperling alleged.
Having said that, I must confess that I would have preferred the use of libel laws here, rather than harassment laws. The use of the latter suggests that Ms Flannagan thought a libel case would not succeed, which would indicate to me that the professional damage here was minimal.
I’m not sure if I fully agree with your assessment of the effect this will have on the blogging community. Judgement was found for the plaintiff in this case due to unusual circumstances including the savage vitriol of Ms Sperling’s continued personal remarks about Ms Flannagan, even after Ms Flannagan ceased engagement and after the first case; the deliberate attacks on her professional status, including a spurious complaint to the law society and the lack of contest from the defendant, who could have appeared as her own defence at minimal cost to her.
I don’t believe these circumstances reflect the situation of even the most aggressive bloggers on the internet.
Thanks for your comment, MacDoctor, for sharing your personal experience of the impact of public comments on your practice/reputation — and your reasonable tone.
Yes, I believe you are right to highlight the reality of derogatory statements affecting the lawyer’s income. It’s true. I don’t seek to ‘minimise’ that factor in this case, although some have read my comments as doing so. I do not.
re: which Act? Defamation or Harassment Act .. see Jay’s comment (above) where he makes the point that if a party is seeking some ‘restraint’, then defamation action won’t give it to them (well, I guess unless the damages won in the case were so harsh that the threat of more loss served as a deterrent).
If you read my post about the 2012 action you’ll see I re-thought my original ignorantly-held negative view of the lawyer making a Harassment Act application. (Oh, that’s not intended as a put-down of you!)
Now, on the bigger issue: I think we’re all in danger of a phenomenon I think of as related to the idea that ‘History is written by the winning side.’
The undefended nature of this latest application/court case and the fact that the lawyer herself stopped ‘engaging’ shouldn’t obscure the fact that the blogger has had to endure the harassment (yes, let’s use that word) of abusive commenters, sock puppets/pretend people (at least two of whom were unmasked as such here at The Paepae) and the anonymous Scrubone attack blogger’s nasty but self-righteous cyber-bullying campaign.
An unfortunate aspect of the tag team wrestling on the blogger’s reputation and state of mind has been nasty anonymous goading via comments submitted to her blog like this:
We, the public, don’t see that stuff, but let me tell you as someone who gets abused by trolls now and then — it’s not trivial.
Another peace-destroying tactic deployed is the posting of blood-curdling, trenchant character attacks (not necessarily anonymous) as a comment on another blog’s comments stream, perhaps with the object of provoking a reaction… then deleting the provocation … leaving the negative reaction in place to appear as an aggressive statement.
Even if a negative reaction isn’t provoked, putting-it-up-pulling-it-down is still a good way to ‘land a punch’ without leaving public evidence of ‘engagement’.
We can all be double-minded and think better of a comment after we posted it, but if you think it’s just the blogger in this case who has done that, I have news for you.
One well-informed and close observer (but unconnected with the Flannagan v Sperling case) said to me today that so much of the past ‘engagement’ by the lawyer’s [snip] supporters and (who knows?) other enemies of the blogger effectively acting as proxies — has been removed (and of course, due to a Court order the blogger’s website has been expunged) that it’s hard for people trying to find out what’s been going on to get a clear idea.
My point: It’s not just the blogger in this case who has covered her tracks at times.
– P
[Update: Mrs Flannagan makes the point, perfectly fairly, that she CANNOT be assumed to condone and IS NOT RESPONSIBLE for the actions of others acting beyond her control. I agree with that, and hadn’t implied otherwise. My earlier reference to her ‘team’ here, and elsewhere, is meant merely to describe people who act or comment in her defence (or more commonly, to denigrate the blogger) and identify themselves as her supporters. I certainly do not imply that she is orchestrating those activities, although in same cases it’s clear they are in communication.]
Yes, I did realize that a libel action will not produce restraint. I am of the opinion that winning a libel suit underpins the malicious and untrue nature of a libel and negates its poison. The excellent side effect is that it does not require gagging orders. The bloggers is free to continue but has “lost the argument”, as it were and further libel become pointless.
Not sure about your argument re: bullying and unpleasant comments. It seems to me, as a fellow blogger that this is part of the territory, especially if you are blogging in an area of hot opinions and controversy. You either have to harden up or switch off comments altogether. My personal tactic is to ridicule trolls until they go away. Works for me.
Both good points. Thanks.
I see more clearly what you mean about libel/defamation action. Right, ‘lost the argument’.
If such an action succeeded, it could be seen as both a vindication and refutation of the veracity of the complained-about claims or statements — and thus could be pointed to as such, discrediting them … without the need to injure the Bill of Rights.
But other people — including the lawyer in this case, I guess — might see their available choices differently and, in the end, ‘You pays your money and makes your choice’.
I’m very clear that the lawyer ‘wanted it to stop’ and sought to have removed some potentially defamatory or injurious content where (unlike here at The Paepae) she may have felt there was no opportunity for her to put her side. That’s reasonable.
And it wasn’t stopping. (As I see it, partly because of provocations of the sort I referred to in my first reply to you, and partly because of the blogger’s poor judgement at times.)
If there’s one thing I’ve learned about bloggers, it’s that many of us can be impulsive at times. Mea culpa at times too. Oops.
—
Re trolls, yes, I wasn’t crying on your shoulder about stuff flung at me. (Kitchens, heat, exits, and all that.) I like the posture you take on your own blog, Jim:
“Feel free to make comments as you see fit. I am relatively tolerant, but try to keep bad language to a minimum. Trolls will die an untimely death…”
I went off on a bit of a dog-leg in the second part of my reply to you (sorry) but I think it’s agreed that this case contains some unusual aspects, including the at-times-extreme, personal, and protracted ‘campaigning’ carried out which Judge Harvey read as going beyond the normal argy-bargy of internet ‘discussion’ (cough) and disagreement.
As I tried to indicate, THAT wasn’t all one-sided, some of it occurred at a subterranean level, and tracks were covered (for whatever reasons).
Anyway, once again, thanks for contributing to this discussion. Feel free to share your thoughts.
– P
Jim, you might be interested in reading this:
Steven Price: ‘wider factors to consider’ in recent online gagging order — his article is titled: ‘Has the Harassment Act just swallowed the law of defamation?‘
http://www.thepaepae.com/steven-price-wider-factors-to-consider-in-recent-online-gagging-order/30579/
– P
[…] after reading a rather lengthy post by Peter Aranyi on The Paepae blog about this matter, I felt that I had to […]
I don’t want to break the internet by sending it spinning endlessly, but here’s a link to NZ Conservative blogger Lucia Maria’s link to my post:
http://nzconservative.blogspot.co.nz/2013/06/blogging-harassment-and-freedom-of.html
What I find interesting is her revelation (see comments) that she’d been the ‘target’ of the sort of subterranean attacks I’ve been talking about merely for linking to my post.
[…] So… it’s not just me who feels uneasy about aspects of the recently-released blogger restraint & gagging order I discussed in my post ‘Is this what we want? Internet ‘take down’ and indefinite gagging orders?‘. […]
The insightful Lucia Maria (Well, yeah, I would say that. She contributes comments here from time to time and we’ve never had a cross word) shares what I regard as an important insight, engaging with anonymous Scrubone:
There’s more. Read the comment in the comment stream on NZconservative blog
http://www.nzconservative.blogspot.co.nz/2013/06/blogging-harassment-and-freedom-of.html
And, it looks like there’s been more background ‘stuff’ — confirming what I’ve said about the ‘subterranean nature’ of this particular dispute …
http://nzconservative.blogspot.co.nz/2013/06/private-messages-regarding-recent.html
Are you forming a picture?
– P
[…] the successful applicant in the recent internet take-down and gagging order case I referred to in Is this what we want? Internet ‘take down’ and indefinite gagging orders? and Steven Price: ‘wider factors to consider’ in recent online gagging […]
[…] and The Leading Edge blogs and elsewhere, where I’ve copped it fairly harshly about my post Is this what we want? Internet ‘take down’ and indefinite gagging orders?, are recent instances of […]
[…] In the context of discussion about some of the implications of the recent court judgement I highlighted in this post Is this what we want? Internet ‘take down’ and indefinite gagging orders? […]
[…] I’m really disturbed by some comments made after your recent post, “Is this what we want? Internet ‘take down’ and indefinite gagging orders?”, especially as some seem to come from professing Christians. I don’t know anyone involved […]