Lol. Q3 here sets out what he (edit: allegedly) said (anything said in the House is protected by Parliamentary privilege)
https://bills.parliament.nz/v/11/59669ddb-f7b1-405a-0e5b-08dc696671a5
Lol. Q3 here sets out what he (edit: allegedly) said (anything said in the House is protected by Parliamentary privilege)
https://bills.parliament.nz/v/11/59669ddb-f7b1-405a-0e5b-08dc696671a5
Yeah I can see the intent of it and I think it does have merit, but access to the courts is expensive and therefore inequitable so it is open to ‘lawfare’ or abuse by powerful people, so you can have a chilling effect on media.
They’ll print about JAG because they don’t see a risk of being taken for defamation I suppose? Perhaps if she threatened it it might be a different story. But again I guess they’ll weigh up their defence as part of it. This is a lot of what lawyers employed by media agencies do I guess.
Yeah it’s interesting stuff. On one hand the media needs to have a high level of scrutiny so we can trust it. On the other hand we are getting a biased view because some are blocking articles while others aren’t.