To name or not to name

To name or not to name the couple who left Auckland and went to Wanaka, is a question before the court:

The Free Speech Union is calling for the couple – one reportedly a child of a Government official – who breached lockdown not to have name suppression says Free Speech Union spokesperson, and lawyer, Stephen Franks.

Both are adults, their parents and what any of them do ought not to be relevant.

“Name suppression will be the worst move for the Auckland couple charged with a cunning move to Wanaka via Hamilton. There are no good reasons for name suppression, and three bad ones.

“First, shame – the fear that your hypocrisy or lying will be uncovered should be a primary deterrent.

“Second, shame should be the main punishment for a ‘social’ crime. Police resources and court time are wasted in such cases, which would not be true if the community were able to impose a more natural and automatic punishment and if Stuff was free to publish what it ‘knew’. Insider arrogance and the love of having ‘secret knowledge’ lies behind much of our substitution of police and court resources for open reporting.

“Thirdly, in this case name suppression will be an own goal. The Streisand effect will operate eventually even if the defendants are tempted by the thought that they can hide their shame behind a court order, and even if the QC gets them a discharge based on some technicality.

“Effectiveness of community consensus against contagion depends on the restrictions being seen as fair. Name suppression will contribute to suspicion, that the elite don’t think the cost of lockdown, let alone the health risks of Covid spreading, outweighs an embarrassment cost to some of them scoffing at the law. We need to see the law being enforced, with details that will deter others.

“We, the public, should know. Freedom of speech is our right to know, not just journalists’ right to tell us. Free speech protects us from potential hypocrisy of powerful insiders. We need to see immediately that we are indeed equal before the law. And true remorse or contrition would have the people charged not trying to hide behind an application that is a byword for privilege.”

Yesterday afternoon I read that the couple’s lawyer was seeking name suppression.

A very few hours later I knew the couple’s names which left me none the wiser as I know neither. Several posts on social media show that lots of other people know too.

A suppression order would stop publication but it couldn’t make those who already know the names unknow them.

I agree with the FSU’s arguments against suppression, but the decision on granting it or not is up to the court.

You are welcome to debate the issue but any comments that attempt to share the names or identifying information will be deleted.

2 Responses to To name or not to name

  1. Andrei says:

    Freedom of speech, freedom of movement and freedom of association are the foundations of life in a free society

    I don’t give a damn about what these people did – but if they or anybody they are closely associated with have been ardent “lockdown”boosters then they should be publicly named, shamed and held up for ridicule

    Like

  2. pdm1946 says:

    I have no problem with them being named – in fact they should be. There is however no need to make any reference to their parents no matter who they may be or what they do. Bloody hell the culprits are said to be 35 and 26 and therefore old enough to make there own decisions.

    Like

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: