08:59 13/06/2011
OPINION: Last weekend Central Otago's Maniototo played host to the 31st running of the Brass Monkey Motorcycle Rally.
Some 1500 of the leather-clad faithful made the annual pilgrimage to what is recognised as New Zealand's hard core motorcycle rally of choice.
After last year's event, when a dozen people were stranded on the snow-covered Dansey Pass and others suffered from hypothermia on the Dunstan Track, this year's affair was mild in comparison with no suggestion of snow.
The common perception of events such as the Brass Monkey tends towards troublesome hordes of maladjusted bikers consuming alcohol, sounding off and marking territory. The reality is quite different. The first thing you notice when walking the frozen ridge line above the Idaburn Dam is the remarkable graciousness and bonhomie of all you meet.
The reason for this is the efficient filter that the remote location and hostile climate provides. To successfully attend the rally takes a fair degree of organisation, good kit and some sheer grit. Together these three factors provide a line in the sand, a line that rat-bags don't cross.
A similar line in the sand was set in concrete a few months ago, when the High Court released its findings resulting from renegade blogger Cameron Slater's appeal. Slater appealed against his conviction for breaching a bunch of name-suppression orders on his Whaleoil website.
Judge Harvey's original 2010 judgment was valuable in providing clear direction on three matters relating to the web and the courts.
First, blogging is publishing. Second, trying to camouflage meaning or be "cute" in your content doesn't change your culpability. Third, if you link your website to offending material on another website then this is likely to equate to publishing.
While none of these were revolutionary in themselves, to have them applied by a knowledgeable judge and encapsulated in case law was pretty useful. It provided a line in the sand where none had been previously. Given its novelty, and the passion Slater had for exposing special treatment for the rich and famous, no-one was surprised when he appealed to the High Court late last year.
Justice White's May judgment considered all four of the submissions made by Slater's counsel, ranging from supposed improper use of terminology through to suggestions it was based on improper considerations.
Every one of the appeal submissions was dismissed, with the finding regularly referencing back to Judge Harvey's original finding.
He then reviewed the sentencing, including the applicant's suggestion that the fines of $750 for each of the nine offences were excessive. Without exception the original sentences were upheld and confirmed.
Slater, Judge Harvey and Justice White have all done us all a favour here. Slater by virtue of trying it on and seeing where the line was, Judge Harvey by defining the line and Justice White in confirming it. What's more it was delivered with offline law.
At a time when there are several reviews under way with a subtext of creating new "internet- only" laws, the fact that old legislation like the Criminal Justice Act had ample firepower to deal with the Whaleoil name suppression case shouldn't be lost.
SIGNIFICANTLY, the fact that the High Court upheld Judge Harvey's original findings shouldn't be confused with the issue of whether such suppression orders should be made in an internet age.
There's a convincing argument that, except for the cases of protecting the weak or the vulnerable, courts should give up granting name-suppression orders.
Such an argument has been given extra cogency by recent events in Britain, where several "super injunctions" were undermined by social media and consequently by parliamentary privilege. A super injunction is where not only are facts or allegations injuncted, but so is the very existence of the injunction itself.
Some British celebrities and politicians have made use of super injunctions to prevent details of alleged affairs and use of prostitutes from being covered in the British media.
Manchester United footballer Ryan Giggs inadvertently brought the matter to a head by (unsuccessfully) trying to sue anonymous Twitter members, after their violation of a super injunction.
British MP John Hemming made the point in the House of Commons two weeks ago when he noted, "With about 75,000 people having named Ryan Giggs on Twitter it's obviously impractical to imprison them all."
Subsequently, British Prime Minister David Cameron said it was unfair for newspapers and online publishers to be penalised for reporting something that everyone was talking about, and it was time to bring the law up to date. Like much in life, most of the issues that the super injunctions were granted for came down to sex. Perhaps people seeking super injunctions should all be sentenced to attending a Brass Monkey first. With sub-zero temperatures and schist-lined camping sites, it's not a place where sex seems either appealing or even achievable to most.
Mike "MOD" O'Donnell is an eCommerce manager, professional director and author. This was his 18th Brass Monkey. His Twitter tag is @modsta
