A local judge has suppressed the names of two offenders in court, but only to websites due the possibility that the internet may be used to gather information about the accused.
The judge, who is known to be quite internet savvy and has his own internet law website has allowed the names to be published in traditional media.
Some online agencies are thinking of challenging the court order.
Today offshore blogs are defying the order by publishing the name and offer scathing remarks on the futility of suppression, especially when it targets the internet.
I agree that if suppression is needed it is given, but it is given across all mediums.
To single out the internet is naive and gives the impression that it is possibly a test case to test the jurisdiction and effects it may have.
So far it has been effective in NZ, but that isn\’t the point. Unless ISP\’s are able to block suppressed content from appearing, the internet will provide the names to anyone.
What do you think? Can supression work, even if it is as selective as in this case?
