[/quote:13obnk7o]Wick, I think you’ll be sweet to name names, its cleary not defamation or so called slanderous comments so you’ll be sweet and I did some investigation into freedom of speech to

There is no statute or positive rule of the common law recognising and protecting freedom of speech and expression in New Zealand. The principle is that anyone may say and publish what he chooses without prior licence or approval (film censorship affords an exception), but he is liable to be punished if he infringes the law. Freedom of speech and expression, including freedom of the press, exists in this country simply because the exceptions to it are limited. It is less extensive than in the United States, where the provision of the Constitution guaranteeing freedom of speech and the press tends to be more valued in cases where it conflicts with other principles, for instance, the right to a fair trial. Moreover, toleration of unpopular views in critical times is probably less than in England. Our civil liberties record in wartime is not admirable.

Almost everyone would accept that there must be some legal restrictions on freedom of speech. In peacetime in New Zealand the main restrictions may be grouped under the heads of sedition, indecency, breach of the peace, defamation, and contempt of Court.

The law of sedition prohibits essentially only the advocacy of violence or disobedience to law. It is not sedition to urge any change in the law or the constitution, however radical. The right of jury trial in sedition cases was taken away in 1951, but the power thus given to prosecute summarily was not used and the right of jury trial was restored in 1960.

The law relating to indecent publications is dealt with in the article Censorship of Books. Under breach of the peace may be included the offence of blasphemous libel. The essence of this crime is the use of offensive language likely to provoke others to a breach of the peace. The expression in good faith and in decent language of any opinion whatever on any religious subject is declared lawful. The last known prosecution for blasphemous libel in New Zealand was in 1922, the defendant being acquitted.

As well as being civil wrongs, libel and slander are criminal offences, although slander is criminal only if spoken within the hearing of 12 or more persons at a public meeting or in a public place, or if it is broadcast. Unlike in civil cases, truth is not always a defence to criminal defamation. It is necessary to show that the matter was true, or was believed on reasonable grounds to be true, and also that the publication was for the public benefit.

While any decision of the Court may be freely criticised on its merits, it is contempt of Court and punishable to attribute bias or improper motives to Judges or Magistrates, since this would tend to lessen confidence in the impartial administration of justice. In recent times, however, the best known application of contempt of Court has been to prevent publication of anything that may prejudice the right of an accused person to a fair trial. It is liability to proceedings for contempt of Court that legally prevents a newspaper from commenting on a crime once a charge has been laid. The concept of contempt of Court is broad and could be used oppressively, but it has undoubtedly had a salutary effect in maintaining the purity and quality of justice.

The converse of freedom of speech is freedom to be silent, something almost as important in a free society. One aspect is the privilege against self-incrimination, which means that no one may be required in or out of Court to disclose anything that may subject him to criminal liability. In a few cases, where full disclosure is regarded as of paramount importance, the law does require it to be made. In that event it is almost always provided that nothing so disclosed may be used as the basis of a prosecution.

There is also the absence of any legal duty to inform on others or, in general, to answer questions put by the police or other authorities except in Court proceedings. In some democracies, for instance, in England and Victoria, an offence known as misprision of felony can be used, although it rarely is, to punish failure to give information to the police concerning more serious crimes. The matter is left in New Zealand to the judgment and sense of responsibility of the individual.

I also looked into the other possibility, defamation to and did some research

pretty much defamtion is a statement about a person which may tend to lower him/her in the estimation of right-thinking people generally. You escape liability if your statement can be proved true, but errors of fact are all too easy to make.

from waht i read the test I would to determine wether it is defamation or not is what an ordinary reader/viewer/listener would take the statement to mean. The author?s intention is irrelevant. So:
a. Defamation can be accidental:
? Inappropriate words
? Half the story
? Misplaced or incorrect photos
b. Denials do not necessarily exempt.
c. Humour, satire, can be defamatory.

You are liable if you report or publish defamatory statements made by others. (Beware talk-back and the live interview.)
? The internet is a form of publication. The statement is ?published? when and where it is downloaded.

4. Defences to defamation

[b:13obnk7o]a. Truth
It is a defence if you can prove your statement is true, or ?not materially different from the truth?.
? ?Not materially different?: what does it mean?
? You must prove truth by evidence
? You can prove substantial truth of whole article, even though only one allegation in it is objected to
? ?Suspicion? is defamatory: you may have to prove guilt to successfully defend
b. Honest opinion (previously ?fair comment?)[/b:13obnk7o]If something of public interest has happened, you may express your honest opinion, or view, on it, provided it?s clear that it is just your opinion.
BUT
i. [b:13obnk7o]The facts must be right
ii. It must be clear you are just expressing your opinion
iii. You must genuinely hold the opinion[/b:13obnk7o]The position of the news media:
? If a contribution is written by an outside contributor, the media company can plead honest opinion if: i. it does not purport to be the media company?s own opinion; and
ii. there is no reason to doubt that the contributor is genuine
c. Privilege
1. Reporting privilege
The media have qualified privilege to publish:
? Fair and accurate (and balanced) reports of: 1) parliament; 2) the courts.
But note that if a participant repeats statements outside the proceedings they are not privileged.
? Fair and accurate (and balanced) reports of many other bodies (eg: local authorities and commissions of inquiry) provided the reports are: 1) on a matter of public interest; 2) and
the person offended has a right of reasonable reply.
2. Political discussion
As the law of New Zealand currently stands, there is a privilege to discuss politicians. In other words, there is greater freedom for the media to criticise politicians than other persons. This was laid down by the Court of Appeal in Lange v Atkinson.
This case was taken to the Privy Council, which referred it back to the New Zealand Court of Appeal for reconsideration. That court then delivered its second judgment, which confirms the law as follows:
? Statements about a politician are normally privileged, provided the discussion is relevant to how the politician does his or her job.
? But such statements are not always privileged. One must also have regard to the context and circumstances in which they are made. The test is whether the publisher and the public have a real shared interest in the publication. (Thus a gratuitous one-liner about a politician in a sports magazine would not be protected, whereas a reasoned criticism of a politician in a serious political article probably would be.)
? Statements about politicians will not be protected, either, if the publisher has taken ?improper advantage of the occasion of publication?. A reckless lack of care, or other form of irresponsible conduct, is thus likely to deprive the publisher of protection.
Considerable caution is necessary here. The law is uncertain and undeveloped, and should not be tested without legal advice. In a recent New Zealand case the Court of Appeal took a narrow view of Lange?s case when allegations of criminal conduct were made against local government politicians. The English courts, applying a very similar test, have required that sources be carefully checked, and they pay attention to the tone of the publication. They also seem to expect the subject to be approached for comment before publication where that is feasible.

5. Remedies for defamation

i. Damages. Judges are now exerting a little more control. You can be liable for damage (including republication) that you should have foreseen. And it does not lessen your liability that other media have been saying the same thing.
ii. Injunction
iii. Declaration
iv. Correction
v. Retraction or reply
(In the cases of iii and iv, the court is unlikely to make an order before the defendant has argued its defence.)

So in my views and in research I think you’ll be more than safe to name names and have no fear of being banned and as for being banned from premises thats next weeks project ” title=”Cheesy” />