So Slater is deemed a journalist and Whale Oil a news medium. The established Main Stream Media can have fun with that one.
For the rest though Slater is up the creek with the Judge passing down in his judgement that Slater must reveal sources as well as being liable for costs (so hollow victory).
In the meantime and especially in relation to this: http://www.nbr.co.nz/article/one-blogger-ruining-it-rest-cg-p-162253 one wonders at the depth of the bloggersphere in New Zealand for which I would be a part of via Talking Auckland.
Does Slater cast us all with the infantile immaturity has been said by the Law Commission, Law Society, and the Courts? Or are there a few of us out there above the sty when casting both news and commentary. We shall see post election.
So Cameron Slater is now officially a journalist, for the purposes of the Evidence Act 2006. Here’s a copy of the High Court’s judgment, thanks to Peter Aranyi at The Paepae (whose post ‘High Court serves a mixed bag for PR attack blogger Cameron Slater‘ is worth reading).
With the unfolding of the Dirty Politics saga after the High Court appeal hearing had occurred, commentators had wondered whether the Judge would reopen the hearing. Mr Blomfield attempted to produce additional evidence that had flowed from the Dirty Politics book, but was quickly rebuffed. In the judgment, Asher J merely notes that leave was declined to introduce further evidence “on the basis that it is hearsay or privileged”.
This gives rise to elements of (possibly) unintentional humour, such as where the Judge states at para 66, “While he [Slater] will often refer to other materials, there was no evidence…
View original post 1,174 more words
Talking Southern Auckland 