Media Release
27th January 2009

Internet Gagging Orders – What’s Next – Government Censorship?

A recent Law Commission Report raised the possibility of Internet gag orders, to prevent people from being able to search for information on prior convictions online.

Peter Jenkins, Webmaster for the Sensible Sentencing Trust says that is an alarming proposal that the public should be very concerned about.

“This frightening proposal would in practice require a far greater degree of government control of NZ based media website content, along with Internet filtering and censorship far more draconian in effect than current practices in the Middle East or the notorious “Great Firewall of China”

The Christchurch mother who this week prepares to stake out Rolleston Prison will no doubt be in agreement. She has made a commitment to track upon his release the whereabouts of Jack Harris, who raped and molested her twelve year old daughter. And she wants to inform the community in which he ends up living amongst so that they will be aware of his presence.

Surely this should be a function of Government, rather than of private individuals? The Government holds this information, and should by rights permit sufficient access to it so that the public can manage their own risks.

Certainly there are some within this new Government who appear to have some understanding of this, and wish to open up the system to some degree.

One such is Simon Bridges, who in a recent Herald profile stated; “juries need to be trusted with more information (such as previous convictions) and victims of sex crimes treated more evenly when compared to the accused.”

Mr. Jenkins says he agrees with Simon Bridges, “Although he does not go as far as we would like, he is at least committed to a greater degree of openness than we currently have.”

“Unfortunately not everyone wishes to move in this direction, if the Law Commission report were adopted we would be locked in to the existing “Criminals Rights” and to hell with all else!”

We need to ask ourselves – is that what we want? To have information on offenders censored and restricted, thereby setting a precedent for the control and censorship of all sorts of other information? Or should we move to a more open system, where the taxpayer gets to actually access criminal data, much of which they have paid for?

Mr. Jenkins points to a Herald article on IT trends earlier this year, in which internet trend-spotter Nathan Torkington stated regarding government held data “We’ve paid for it, so where the hell is it?”. Certainly this applies to criminal records for serious violent and sexual offenders, records which law abiding taxpayers are too often denied access.

“The tax payer has paid for these records, we should have them – on the internet.” Ends

© Scoop Media