April 19, 2008...8:00 am
Updates: Saturday April 19
Blog removes Listener article and apologises after intervention by legal heavyweight Bell Gully
In what may be an unfortunate first for the New Zealand blogosphere, Gareth Renowden’s Hot Topic blog has published a lawyer-demanded correction and apology to the Listener and its editor Pamela Stirling over its earlier article about the dropping of Listener Ecologic columnist Dave Hansford.
Hot Topic makes it clear its apology follows the intervention of law firm Bell Gully, which is heavy stuff indeed for a blog. Renowden’s original article is no longer there, with the link carrying the message: “This post removed at the request of The Listener and their friends at Bell Gully.”
I wrote about the Hansford issue yesterday. Hansford had suggested, in a comment still on Hot Topic,that he had been let go by the Listener for writing a column critical of climate change sceptics Owen McShane and Bryan Leyland. I thought Stirling would have had much deeper reasons that that, but as I noted, she has not responded to two emails I sent her seeking her comments. However, she told media columnist John Drinnan that Hansford was only ever hired for a short-term position for two months and the column was now being written by a staffer.
If a heavyweight law firm has ever been used to force a retraction and apology by a New Zealand blogger before, I have not heard of it.
Many New Zealand blogs engage in very robust discussion, but it seems extraordinary that it is a mainstream media outlet using a lawyer to force a retraction by a blogger. It is usually the mainstream media that receives lawyers’ letters, and which often says our defamation laws inhibit freedom of expression. The Listener is owned by APN, a multinational company that also owns the NZ Herald, our biggest newspaper.
It will be interesting to see if, to use the legal phrase, this has “a chilling effect” on blog writers, who are essentially amateurs talking to each other in cyberspace, not wealthy mass-media outlets with deep pockets and corporate lawyers.
Yes, blogs are subject to the same laws as the mainstream media. But never, ever, had I imagined a mainstream media organisation would use the law and lawyers against a critic, let alone against a blogger.
Update:Media law expert and blogger Steven Price now has an article discussing the case, saying “the Listener has used a tenuous legal claim to bully a blogger into retracting some moderate and reasonable criticisms. I don’t like it when anyone does this, but it’s particularly ugly when the heavies are acting for the media.”
Nimby victory against waterfront Hilton
The backers of the proposed Hilton hotel on Wellington’s waterfront have decided not to appeal against the Environment Court ruling against them. I overlooked mentioning this when it was announced last week, but hey, such things are what the Saturday updates are for, and I need to put my regret on the record, having greeted the court decision last month with dismay.
I liked the idea of having a Hilton on the outer T of Queen’s Wharf, at present home to a rundown old shed. It would have brought people and activity to the area 24 hours a day, something the waterfront is still short of. And it would have been the capital’s first five-star hotel, a facility the city desperately needs.
Unfortunately, the Resource Management Act lets every nimby going try to block good ideas as well as bad, and as well as the Hilton being opposed by the usual suspects like Waterfront Watch and Helene Ritchie, the nearby Intercontinental hotel, clearly scared of competition, joined in.
Announcing there would be no appeal, Waterfront Investments’ lawyer, Richard Cathie, said: “It’s the end of the line.” While the company disagreed with the Environment Court decision, it could only appeal on points of law. “It decided it was not worth pursuing the risk involved in more litigation. It’s very disappointing all round.”
And so it is. Ratepayers are now likely to be lumbered with the huge cost of repiling and strengthening that old wharf, which the hotel developers would have done had their project gone ahead. Lose-lose, except for the tiny group of nimbys who oppose everything.
The only glimmer of light is the comment by Hilton Hotels Australian vice-president Ashley Spencer that this does mean the end of Hilton’s plans to be in Wellington: “We are confident there will be opportunities for a Hilton hotel elsewhere in Wellington and we continue to look for such opportunities.”
11 Comments
April 19, 2008 at 8:26 am
Hansford comments on Pamela Stirlings response as well as links to the cache of the now pulled original blog.
Aaah…the internet. It must be frustrating for the legal eagles at times.
http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2008/04/the_listener_against_free_spee.php
April 19, 2008 at 8:35 am
A case of “You prove it (or withdraw it)?”
April 19, 2008 at 9:16 am
If a heavyweight law firm has ever been used to force a retraction and apology by a New Zealand blogger before, I have not heard of it.
Poneke:
Without wanting to comment on the merits or otherwise of the post in question, I’ve always said it was a matter of when not if something like this happened. And while I’ve got my issues with the current state of defamation law, I don’t think that’s a bad thing.
Aaah…the internet. It must be frustrating for the legal eagles at times.
Yes, enzer. Then again, I was rather frustrated by the anonymous (naturally) douche bag over on Kiwiblog who accused me of ’supporting a paedophile’, then boasted that I could sue if I liked because nobody would ever find him.
April 19, 2008 at 9:43 am
The Listener has made a bad a decision and has been VERY ill-advised. Trying to shut down debate on the internet is like trying to play a game of whack a mole, and in the meantime every blogger and blog reader from here to Timbuktu will be gleefully playing their part in that great game:
“LOLZ! teh interwebz ownz all your lawyerz”
April 19, 2008 at 11:08 am
Trying to shut down debate on the internet is like trying to play a game of whack a mole, and in the meantime every blogger and blog reader from here to Timbuktu will be gleefully playing their part in that great game
Tom: Serious question, but is there anything that’s NOT a game to you?
April 19, 2008 at 2:41 pm
RE: the Hilton.
This is clearly another case of abuse of the RMA by a competitor. However, it nicely illustrates another argument I have been mounting for some time.
A group of members of “The public” were able to complain that their enjoyment of the harbour would be diminished by the construction of the hotel. This may be true. But the process does not provide any voice for the public who would have gained the benefit of using the private space. If this were a 200 room hotel with a number of public restaurants and bars then possibly 100,000 people a year would have enjoyed better access to the harbour and possible enjoyed once in a lifetime views as foreign tourists.
But they don’t count and they are given no voice.
I have observed that the public have rights when on public property but seem to lose them when they enter private property - they become second grade citizens.
Similarly, a small number of households have been able to persuade Transit to put the last link of the Western Ring Route motorway in a tunnel to protect their amenities. But again, no one bothered to consult the 120,000 motorists who now have to enter a tunnel rather than enjoy the views etc, from an open motorway - and they are the ones paying for the road! Evidently once you enter a car you lose all your rights and deserve any punishment you get.
In five years half those Mt Albert households will have moved on. The tunnels will be there for a thousand years. The Romans built roads - and we still use them.
April 19, 2008 at 8:06 pm
Steven Price has given his view at Media Law Journal (poneke links above)
April 19, 2008 at 9:03 pm
If you stick a 5-star hotel on the outer T of the wharf you are instantly introducing high levels of car (+ taxi, van, truck, coach, shuttle, etc) traffic to what is currently a pedestrian recreation area. Unless the patrons of a 5-star hotel are planning on walking with their luggage from the railway station or a taxi rank on Aotea Quay…
It seems like a highly undesirable (not to mention unsafe) location for that much motor vehicle traffic.
The Overseas Terminal however might be a better bet.
April 19, 2008 at 9:11 pm
“…I was rather frustrated by the anonymous (naturally) douche bag over on Kiwiblog who accused me of ’supporting a paedophile’, then boasted that I could sue if I liked because nobody would ever find him…”
I can safely report - Get used to the profile, I’m afraid. I keep my family & private life absolutely off the internet because people say stuff like this. they don’t even need to actually be familiar with any facts, a Chinese whisper based on an untruth will do. Just laugh it off - remember, the people whose opinion counts will still love you even if it’s true and the rest? WTF do they know?
P.S. - the game question - holistic philosophy of life stuff is best to late night, in person, and after lots of liquor. And no, I’m straight thats not a invitation to a date.
April 19, 2008 at 10:55 pm
We had to retract an article and publish an apology under legal request very early last year - as a result of something someone commented on our site which then crossed over to the mainstream media.
April 20, 2008 at 1:56 pm
“I keep my family & private life absolutely off the internet because people say stuff like this…”
I think it’s mostly fine to be open and honest about who you are here in NZ. Sure, people can mouth off a string of abuse online at you, but people aren’t likely to go and knock on your front door to have a discussion with you about it. I would say there are exceptions to this though and I do think it really depends on what the topics are that you weigh in about.
I really think though that if people are prepared to say something on the internet, then people should man up and be prepared to say it to someone’s face too.
Leave a Reply