So, like, who is it? Surely the Streisand affect couldn’t rear its ugly head for something like this
this post was submitted on 22 Aug 2025
17 points (100.0% liked)
Aotearoa / New Zealand
2036 readers
29 users here now
Kia ora and welcome to !newzealand, a place to share and discuss anything about Aotearoa in general
- For politics , please use !politics@lemmy.nz
- Shitposts, circlejerks, memes, and non-NZ topics belong in !offtopic@lemmy.nz
- If you need help using Lemmy.nz, go to !support@lemmy.nz
- NZ regional and special interest communities
Rules:
FAQ ~ NZ Community List ~ Join Matrix chatroom
Banner image by Bernard Spragg
Got an idea for next month's banner?
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
As a reminder the public is not bound by any name suppression orders. If you know something, say something.
Source?
Name suppression in New Zealand is when someone's name or identity is kept secret by the court. It's usually done to protect the person's privacy or to ensure a fair trial.
This means the media and the public can't publish or share that person's name. That includes sharing a name in a private text message, oral communication, or on any online platform.
https://www.1news.co.nz/2024/05/20/name-suppression-what-is-it-and-why-do-people-get-it/
I don't see how a court ruling which didn't involve you in any way can gag you in any way.
The reason the court can make a judgement that gags people not involved is simply because that's what the law says. The law says there is such a thing as name suppression where no one can tell others, and it gets invoked by a judge saying so. That's all there is to it.
The same way you have to pay taxes even though you were never involved in that decision.
Has anybody ever been prosecuted for mentioning a name that's been suppressed?
I mean it depends on what exactly you mean. "Mentioning" as in saying out loud is probably hard to prove.
But something that comes to mind is blogger Cameron Slater that got done for writing a blog breaching name suppression: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cameron_Slater
Sounds like he got a slap on the wrist for writing in a highly read blog. If you named somebody here nobody would do anything.
One thing to remember here is that we aren't on some facebook page. I wouldn't risk the existence of this instance by leaving up something that exposes name suppression, and I would appreciate if others also respected that. No matter how small you think the risk is, it's not worth it to know someone's name when you can't do anything about it anyway.
Name suppression is a great thing.
It allows for a trial to be conducted fairly, and not in the court of public opinion.
Permanent name suppression, it another matter entirely, and deserves careful scrutiny.
I don't see why the public opinion matters once the trial has started. Even before it shouldn't matter because the jury is supposed to only consider the evidence presented in court.
Because, in the age of the internet. Once information is out, it can't by put back.
If you are innocent in court, but the public has already decided you are not.... Too bad for you.
I don't see why that's a problem. If the court finds you not guilty that's the only thing that really matters. The public will have an opinion of you whether or not there is a trial.
Other countries are looking at our laws, for exactly this reason.
It is not just the court that matters. What your community thinks is far more important, in the long run.
Once again. What the community thinks of you isn't a concern for the government or the law. Do you think the courts should get involved every time there is some gossip about some celebrity? How about if somebody is filmed as they trip on the crosswalk and the community makes fun of them for being clumsy? What if they are slovenly and the community thinks they smell?
If someone is accused of a crime, we afford them the dignity to have their trial before judgement is passed.
This is not a controversial position to take.
I'm not really sure what you are trying to argue for here.
If someone is accused of a crime, we afford them the dignity to have their trial before judgement is passed
Absolutely.
This is not a controversial position to take.
No it's not.
I’m not really sure what you are trying to argue for here.
That me being able to judge the character and morals of somebody is different than the courts judging those things.
Ok, so lets speculate here.
Let us say, that you are accused of a crime, that you didn't do! There isn't a lot of hard evidence either way. Also assume it is fairly serious, not murder/pedo stuff; but more like indecent assault/putting someone in hospital; it happened years in the past.
After a lengthily trial and digging into the past; you are found not guilty, but not in a resounding victory kinda way. More like the balance of probability way.
You seem to be advocating for; the public knowing the details of the trial during the trial. Given as much time to speculate on your innocence/guilt as they want.
Potential employers; in the future can look you up and see there was a lot of speculation about if you did/didn't do the crime; and rather than risk it, just don't bother calling you back, even though you are completely innocent.
You seem to be advocating for; the public knowing the details of the trial during the trial. Given as much time to speculate on your innocence/guilt as they want.
Yes.
Potential employers; in the future can look you up and see there was a lot of speculation about if you did/didn’t do the crime; and rather than risk it, just don’t bother calling you back, even though you are completely innocent.
Sure. Just like they can look at your old facebook posts and decide they don't like you. You were found not guilty and if they are going to hold that against you there is nothing you can do. Just like if they are going to hold it against you because you have an accent, or a name they can't pronounce, or the fact that you wore black socks with sneakers. I have seen HR people throw CVs in the trash because the name was foreign and there was already a pile of candidates with names like John or Steven.
The public is going to judge you no matter what you do and you can't prevent them from doing so. The jury is supposed to presume not guilty, evaluate the evidence presented to them and decide whether the weight of the evidence should shift that presumption to guilty. Most cases are probably decided on probabilities but the jury doesn't tell you what degree of confidence they have in the verdict. It's either guilty or not guilty and it's unanimous.