Comments on: Updates: Saturday April 19

By: Muerk

Muerk — Sun, 20 Apr 2008 01:56:53 +0000

“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.

By: Rachel

Rachel — Sat, 19 Apr 2008 10:55:49 +0000

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.

By: toms

toms — Sat, 19 Apr 2008 09:11:32 +0000

“…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.

By: Dan Slevin

Dan Slevin — Sat, 19 Apr 2008 09:03:50 +0000

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.

By: Andrew W

Andrew W — Sat, 19 Apr 2008 08:06:31 +0000

Steven Price has given his view at Media Law Journal (poneke links above)

By: Owen McShane

Owen McShane — Sat, 19 Apr 2008 02:41:19 +0000

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.

By: Craig Ranapia

Craig Ranapia — Fri, 18 Apr 2008 23:08:30 +0000

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?

By: toms

toms — Fri, 18 Apr 2008 21:43:51 +0000

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”

By: Craig Ranapia

Craig Ranapia — Fri, 18 Apr 2008 21:16:54 +0000

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.

By: John

John — Fri, 18 Apr 2008 20:35:30 +0000

A case of “You prove it (or withdraw it)?”