Judge bans online media from naming accused, but offline OK

http://www.nzherald.co.nz/section/1/story.cfm?c_id=1&objectid=10528866

What a stranger ruling?? - perhaps guided by a lack of understanding of Internet search.

Anyone who reads the paper tomorrow can then make a blog comment, web-page discussing the case/accused - but not news media?

The effect of this ruling could therefore be.... basically nil. In fact, because newsmedia's lack of mentions will be a 'hole' in search results, the chance of a search result being a blog with purely fabricated/slanderous etc material on it will rise - the net result could end up being a worse portraying of the accused in top search results!

R

Nuts. Like you said, probably a complete lack of understanding.

But almost as terrible was this line in the article: To find out who the men are buy tomorrow's New Zealand Herald Money-grubbing little bastards...

Does it really matter to us what the names of the accused are?

Apart from the fact that people will blog about it (mostly because its a new type of ruling) this *may* go some of the way to limiting jurors finding info pre trial.

There is also the fact that info published on a site like the herald has more perceived credibility than a blog... which, these days is probably unfounded.

High court judges have been getting training on computer/internet/IT principles of late so maybe he isnt as ignorant as you think.

judging by the ages of the accused and locale of the crime... I imagine bebo will already have plenty of 'blogs'

weird but interesting ruling

You'll have to explain that thinking a little more clearly - what exactly is he trying to stop here? And how will it be stopped by allowing full publication in all offline media, and all online media except "news-sites"?

If someone on bebo said "a baby stole my dingo" it would have less credibility than if the herald site said the same.

You might not be able to stop *all* publication on easily searchable media but limiting it *may* go some way to making the results less credible and therefore less likely to influence the proceedings.

It would seem that jurors have been looking into things for themselves. I would hate for someone to get off a charge simply because some idiot juror (lets face it most people who are smart have better things to do) decided to look it up and then said something in the jury discussions.

I think the issue is: if information about a court case/accused were to be reported it is a fair assumption that a newsmedia outlet would be more likely to have the general facts right, which many blogs wont concern themselves with. Likewise, and maybe more importantly, a newsmeia outlet will generally not have a personal bias/agenda in this sort of news...

So - take out the top couple of search results on a given topic - which were likely to be the newsmedia's websites - and add that fact that over the top three search results in an average search get over 80% of the clicks - and it isn't hard to fathom this sort of ruling could actually make things worse for the accused - if that was the judges concern.

R

Most ad agencies and web developers don't even have a full grasp of how search works - so a judge cannot realistically be expected to know from the sort of course they'd likely do.

R

Of real interest - the judge is considered one of our MOST technically-literate and has written a textbook on NZ cyberlaw.

Still entirely fail to see why the media format makes the difference - if it's printable in the Herald, why is not allowed on nzherald.co.nz? They carry the same credibility, and by allowing widespread publication he's not supressing information. To say he wants to limit the ease of finding information at a later date that he's willing to make publically available just makes no sense?

Which means he could know zero about search engines and heaps about copyright/IP issues as would more than likely be the main focus of the legal industry.

R

perhaps.... the judge being technically literate realises that once these peoples names are online that they will remain so forever - and if this is the case we might see this as a common decision, especially with young and first time offenders - as even if found guilty a google search by a prospective employer will always pull up a case like this and potentially ruin these peoples futures even if found innocent

*stops thinking, it hurt*

That might make sense - but wouldn't it be easier to order - in all cases where an accused was found not guilty - for local online media to remove their name?.. after a short while search engine indexing would reflect this.

He's attempting to stop the wind with his hands..

R

Sure it *should* be more credible but in my experience the herald is not exactly a bastion of credibility.

Even if it was, the hearld reporting someone as saying "the baby stole my dingo" lends more weight to it even though they are only reporting that someone said that not that its true.

I agree it is a bit weird but its not the end of the world and these kinds of things are what is needed to be tested.

Or get better jurors...

Sorry - should be "local media be ordered by the court to remove their name"

It is still futile-ish but would remove the easily found listings.

R

a order to remove names/content wouldn't effect cached pages on servers all over the world (techy types can probably expand on this)

For sure... was just thinking that, at the lower level, they probably wouldn't make many indexes overseas and, over time, the cached pages would update to the ammended ones which have the names removed.

It wouldn't solve it but would go a fair way to being a fair outcome for wrongly accused etc.

R

Let's get rid of our antiquated rules about preventing the release of information pre-trial, and all is sorted

The Judge in question is actually an IT law specialist

Which, as I say above, means he could still know little about search engine indexing/history which is what this is about essentially.

His area of expertise, as he discusses in his book, is the internet as a major source of information and a business and technological resource which stretches across international boundaries and through many different legal jurisdiction.



This doesn't imply to me at all he is an expert on social media/networks, search ranking formulation/history etc. More along the lines criminal/copyright jurisdiction internationally (as was worked on majorly in the early 2000s by Justice Baragwanath.)

Having said that, I'm sure he'd know better than to rule without seeking advice on the subject. In this case it seems the end ruling is a little out of touch with the reality of modern media.

R

Weird update... another website says the accused's information cannot be published online period - different to what was said earlier and in the original Herald article which confined it to news media.

WTF? Make up your mind.

R

Very interesting ruling indeed. Not too sure if it will achieve what the Judge is trying to achieve and it is probably going to be appealed as media lawyers are all over it at the moment.

Media coverage of pre-trial crime is getting worse and worse in NZ. How people like Veitch or Petricevic can expect a fair trial after the sort of coverage they've received is rather puzzling.

BG do you think there is any way for the pre trial media coverage in our sad gossip orientated world to be constrained so that justice can actually be done?

considering the time it takes for someone to get their day in court we are subjected to several waves of publicity, conjecture and opinion making by the media that its mighty hard I would imagine for anyone to be unbiased

Yeah - which actually makes more sense to me. I think it was probably the Herald being self-interested (OMG we're not allowed to publish) when they said online news.

I imagine he's having a go at shutting down the rampant speculation and rumours and pronouncements of guilt/innocence that now characterise online discussion of cases. As BG said, imagine that applied to the Veitch case...

The Judge may have a point with his order.

If you are googling the case to find out the names of the accused, or just doing a general internet search on the case, it is likely that the first few "hits" from key words typed in will be from news media reports and websites. And if the names are suppressed and not published on those sites, they won't come up.

So the order may be effective to a degree.

But the point I made above was, bloggers will ignore this and write whatever they want - sometimes with far less accuracy and certianly with more bias than a newsmedia outlet. So, in this case, the search results will show those blogs instead of the arguably more reliable newsmedia sites.... so the motive of his ruling would be defeated at least in the highest search returns.

R

Yeah but blogs arent expected to be balanced so carry less weight.

I dunno many blogs show less bias than the MSM and when they do its quite overt

bloggers are generally not pawns to PR companies either

don't discount the blogger as a reputable source of news

You haven't quite got my point.

I wouldn't expect those blogs or forum discussions you mention to necessarily appear at the top of any search - they may be several pages in, if at all - it all depends on the search terms used.

and as bob points out the those sources will carry less authority or weight.

Look at it this way.

Suppose several months down the track someone recalls the case and wants to find out the names of the accused. He/she can either:

1. Visit a news website and do a search by date or keywords. News report will come up, but no names because of suppression order.

2. An internet savvy or more persistent type would then go to a search engine and do a general search on keywords about the case etc. I am not convinced that many blogs discussing the case and mentioning names of accused would appear in the first page or so of hits. Maybe they would, but it would have to depend on the search engine and search criteria used.

But their motivations are what slant their stories... Whereas newsmedia outlets generally don't have a regular bias in run-of-news stories that significantly affects the perception people take from a story. Bloggers most definitely do - altho it doesn't mean some bloggers don't hold higher standards in burden of proof/ethics before stating facts or opinions. But the general nature of blogs is more close-to-home, largely opinion-based posts - these are what I would have thought were potentially the most damaging/unfair in court cases like this one... people running off without knowing or caring to include certain relevant bits of information.

R

I see your point, but search engines will rank pages/sites on meritocracy for a given search term. In cases where the larger newsmedia don't have a page matching the result the 2nd string sites will occupy the top results. It doesn't take a very specific search string to get the result you want: read newspaper, enter persons name with the word 'Auckland' or 'shooting' and it'd be there.

And its the people with the motivation to post stuff - perhaps erroneously - that the judge is trying to stifle... but it wont work other than in the very short term. He could have ordered all newsmedia outlets to retrospectively edit their mentions of certain people later - which would work in some ways - but there is no way any judge wants to go down the road of ordering edits to news archives... that's a slippery road to go down, so he's trying to do it at the beginning... and confusing the issue.

R

I doubt many bloggers care to comment on many court cases - whereas the media do as a matterof course - and as we all know the MSM is quite happy to publish inaccuracies and pure speculative information and portrait it as fact

I can't see how the judges decision could be based around google/search engine search rankings... if the judgement was an attempt to keep the accused names off the web then if the name is found on page 1 or page 1500 of a google search is immaterial, surely

http://www.nzherald.co.nz/section/1/story.cfm?c_id=1&objectid=10529128

names online already

Yes, but especially in gang-related cases the people who will post are often very motivated and can say/encourage retributive crimes etc - newsmedia don't generally do this that I know of. I think this could have been the judges concern. Remember the kid who died and people were putting crap all over Bebo.. that sort of thing.



I agree. Once word is out - anywhere - it should really be deemed to be out in general.

R

You all realise that it's NO PUBLICATION AT ALL ON THE INTERNET, right? And are just arguing the hypothesis of only news sites?

The complete banning of internet publication will severely curtail the ability of a sworn jury to find reports - and especially uninformed opinion - once the trial begins. You could go down to the library for a microfiche of the case but you won't have an inane bebo and blog threads on it.

meh

making it harder is a legitimate reason, im interested to see how this plays out.

My ratioanle is: there IS a problem and doing *something* is better than not trying at all unless its just for the sake of it.

Some people will of course talk about it just because they cant but if judgements like this go on then maybe those people will be less inclined to do so.

When the thread started it was only newsmedia according to Herald, Stuff and TV3s websites... which were all changed yesterday evening.

The point should also be made - there are real consequences for newsmedia for ignoring these rulings but generally bloggers etc get away with ignoring them - much to the annoyance of courts.

R

Backs up my comment about bloggers not giving a rat's arse about court orders.

R

The vast majority in NZ would use Google. And "Google.co.nz" will list NZ specific results first.

Assuming none of the main news-media sites report on it, and it's only blogs or forum, the chances are pretty high that it will rank on the first page.

There's also no reason to assume that the person searching would use different search terms than if he/she was searching on a news site. They're likely also to use words relating to the crime, place, date etc.

To be honest, from what I've seen, most people tend to be quite literal and specific when they're searching for something, or they try to be as specific/narrow as they can get.

Unfortunately I don't think there is a way to do it and this causes me grave concern.

Pre-trial media coverage is one thing. Trial media coverage is even worse. Biased and unbalanced reporting by main stream media, free reign on radio talk-back for every Tom Dick and Harry to express a view on the accused's innocence, guilt, penalty, or just general disdain towards any person accused of a crime - it's appalling.

In all of this, the accused's right to fair trial ranks second to our innate need for gossip and sensationalism.

Americans sequester their juries during trial and grill them prior to trial about their prejudices, sympathies and ability to be fair when deliberating and deciding their verdict. Is that a better way? I honestly don't know. What I do know is that we have to find a way to protect the right to a fair trial from media interference.

wow, it just to me 2 seconds on google to find those names

wrong. the news-media sites WILL report on it (and are reporting on it) they just can't mention the names.

as i said, the first port of call for most web searchers will be news websites

Don't take my post out of context.

I'm responding to the fact that you assume blogs which have posted the names of the accused will not rank high on Google search results in comparison to news-media sites which don't publish the names.

If someone sets out to search for the names, the blogs which have listed them will rank quite highly in comparison to the news sites - and I wouldn't be surprised if they ranked on the first page either.

You need to understand that when someone searches for something via Google, they are actually quite specific on what they want. Conscious or subconscious filtering of the keywords and results are always at play.

Searching "Murder in Auckland" and "Names of Murderers in Auckland" will yield very different results. And the content of each online link in relation to the search terms and the way those search terms were used, will have an impact on how Google ranks its results.

Are you referring to search results or starting search points?

I would be inclined to agree with the former (person is more likely to click on a credible news media link vs anonymous blog) but definitely not the latter.

Honestly, name suppression should be automatic and permanent, unless they are found guilty.

Bail restrictions can work, but they have to have the ability to be fully compensated if found not guilty.

Is there no public interest in justice then?

there is public interest and then there is public interest in gossiping and sensationalism. current media caters to the latter not the former.

What is the argument FOR knowing the name of someone accused of a crime, but not found guilty? I can't really see any?

In case they have commited other crimes, or in the instance of fraud you might like to take more precautions if you are dealing with them.

Blue chip?

Even using google.com the results are still biased to your local area.

R

Not if you know how to set it for globalised rankings. But that's another discussion and I had thought best to use an NZ example specifically for this case.

But I digress from the point you're trying to make, sorry.

You're right, by default Google will redirect a user to their domestic domain (if they have one) when they type in Google.com, and it will skew your results towards domestic results to make them more meaningful to the user.

However, you can manually select for it to search and rank by global listings without any regional skews.

Usually bail conditions can impose restrictions, or informing people you are trading with that you are under investigation. It's quite a grey area here, because false accusations could cost you millions, and true accusations could cost others

Once someone is named, they are shamed. If they are found 'not guilty', many people think 'oh he got away with it' or 'he was doing something dodgy'. That his / her name is cleared still doesn't change the perpetual perception people will hold of them.

The argument is essentially one of open justice. Justice must be seen to be done and any restriction on publication of or public access to court process must be well justified.

The principle of open justice is of course a fundamental concept in our system of justice. But it may be that in this day and age when reporting is so unbalanced, biased and inaccurate the principle needs to be given more limited effect.

However, there is as bob points out the practical effect of publication. In many instances it serves the wider public to be aware that someone is facing charges.

Re open justice - how does having the NAME of someone under accusation affect the transparency of justice? Justice is done/not done regardless of your name - it is entirely without bearing on a case?

And a warning to the public seems counter to concepts of innocence before guilt?

transparency of justice is the notion that the court's doors are open for any member of the public to come on in and have a look-see at the justice process in flesh. media is simply an extension of the individual in the circumstances and because the defendant's name is mentioned in the court process (when his case is called, when the charges are read, etc) the media hear in and in turn report it.

to suppress the identity of an accused person would mean that when placed before the court persons would have to be addressed without the reference to their name which is doable but that wouldn't stop a reporter from finding it out anyway.

on the warning to public point, there is*arguably* public interest in awareness that a person is accused of a crime. not so much a warning but merely making the public aware. that in principle doesn't run counter to the presumption of innocence, though in reality it probably does.

Theres a difference to saying that someone is facing charges (unproven) of X crime versus saying that someone is guilty/convicted of X crime.

The news media report such things all the time. For instance "Joe Bloggs believes that the sky is falling. The government refused to comment"

In some cases it doesnt matter in others it does - how do you decide?