Police say website comments not illegal

Police say website comments not illegal
February 22nd, 2007 by watchingcyfs

Police say website comments not illegal

By MAGGIE TAIT - NZPA Thursday, 22 February 2007

A website that carried a posting by someone who said they wanted to beat up Green Party MP Sue Bradford has been closed.

ANTI-SMACKING BILL SET TO BECOME LAW

It was unclear if it the closure of the Cyfswatch website was permanent.

Meanwhile, police have told NZPA that the comments made on the site did not break any laws.
Police diplomatic protection squad Sergeant Ron Lek told NZPA that the posting was written in such a way it skirted breaking the law.

The posting raised the prospect of assassinating the MP, who has a member’s bill before Parliament to remove the right of parents to smack children to correct them.

The legislation takes away the defence of reasonable force against assault of a child under Section 59 of the Crimes Act.

The author says they would like to punch Ms Bradford and break her nose and gave a graphic account about other injuries that would be inflicted.

“We’ve had legal advice to say basically no criminal offence has been committed as yet,” Mr Lek said.

“But we’re obviously concerned as far as the implications in the blog goes.”

Mr Lek said it was not legal to make threats.

“But the way it was worded it was not a direct threat as such. It’s couched in a way it - possibly cleverly or by pure luck - that the person doesn’t commit an offence.”

Mr Lek said police would try find out who was behind the posting.

When asked if security for Ms Bradford had been increased Mr Lek said the DPS do not comment on individual security matters.

Ms Bradford yesterday told reporters she was alarmed at the posting which “details a graphic physical assault on me and asks people to send in my home address”.

“I’ve referred it to the police here at Parliament and I’m quite concerned about my physical safety at this time.”

The website also said it would publish Ms Bradford’s residential address if it was supplied.

The anonymous posting suggests Ms Bradford should be killed.

“Bradford is a worthy candidate for NZ’s first political assassination – I only wish I had the resources to do it.”

The website was set up to criticise Child, Youth and Family Services (CYF) and caused controversy with a “name-and-shame” blog which provided personal information about individual social workers.

Google ordered it to remove some posts that were not compliant with its terms of service.

Ms Bradford said she hoped her address was not in the public domain and she would consider getting protection.

“I’ve asked my secretary to go straight to the Parliamentary police to let them know that I am worried now. I wasn’t before,” she said.

“There have been occasional threats in the past but the fact they are trying to track down my address at the same time as describing a graphic and quite horrible assault on me is distressing at this time in the Parliamentary debate.”

She said the incident reflected the campaign some of her opponents had whipped up around the debate.

“Some of the parents who want to defend the parents right to hit their kids seem quite fanatical and I think this threat against me is the latest manifestation.”

Ms Bradford’s bill passed its second reading last night, to move one step closer to becoming law.

Ms Bradford said she hoped the site had been closed permanently. She had been contacted by other people abused on the site.

“They’re saying to me ‘now you understand how bad it is’,” she told NZPA.

“If that website could be closed down, that would be fantastic. It isn’t just about me.”

Ms Bradford said she was not getting special security at this stage.

“I’m hoping that the emotions that have been aroused will calm down as they realise that the democratic processes of this country need to take place and threatening to kill people is really anathema to democracy.”

Internet commentator David Farrar said he expected that Google, that own the blog host blogspot.com had decided to delete the site.

He said there was no question the latest posts would have breached its terms of service agreement.

It was possible the site’s authors may try get another host.