Online reporting ban.

On the 25th August, in the hum of Manakau city, Judge David Harvey issued a suppression order over the publication of the names of two men charged with the murder of 14 year old John Hapeta (left). The judge ruled that the two accused could be named in newspapers, on television and radio, but not online. The ruling was also restricted to New Zealand websites. Fairfax Media and APN News and Media are likely to appeal the ruling. Now why would any judge make a ruling like that? Many offshore websites still carry the identities of the accused, as does a New Zealand website that continues to defy the ruling. So what is the point?

David Harvey has been a district court judge for 13 years and been involved with computers for 21 years. He teaches the Law and Information Technology course at the Faculty of Law at the Auckland University. Now, looking at his background, we can see that perhaps his ruling wasn’t as random as it was ludicrous. Many people are calling Judge Harvey an internet censor and while he doesn’t want the names mentioned online, he welcomes discussion on the ruling. When the media questioned the Judge about whether the suppression order would stay in place, he said: “That is really up to you. I’ve invited argument on this point.”

Confused? I certainly am. It almost seems that he wants publicity, that he’s inviting attention towards the case. The names of the accused can be published anywhere and everywhere with the exception of the internet so by now, the public knows their names. This means that we aren’t left wondering yet we are left talking about it. There’s the possibility that he wanted to avoid it been discussed online and would rather it discussed on more influential mediums such as the television. Was this Auckland judge really after fame? Or was there plausible reason behind his ruling?

Delving deeper into this issue, I found that Judge Harvey tried to have a formal meeting for discussion on the ruling but to his disappointment, only two reporters turned up. For a tech-savvy man, he seems to be making a good job at looking like an internet hater. He wants to take the discussion away from the realms of the internet world, and make it more personal. However, I read on something on a blog that seemed very true, that journalists are busy people and he’s only likely to get a good discussion going on if it was done online. Judge Harvey seems intent on avoiding this. It’s possible he’s learnt that the internet has become a field of rubbish and that intellectual minds would be better exercised in formal discussions.

These opinions are not simply from out of nowhere, because we can all see the proof. The only thing that differs is what people read into it, therefore, we all have different opinions on the matter. No one person can say why Judge Harvey made this ruling, we can only guess with the evidence that’s been put in front of us (courtesy of the relentless media).