Blogger challenges suppression

A letter directed to Cameron Slater
RE : Name suppression issues.

http://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/news/article.cfm?c_id=1&objectid=10618444
http://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/news/article.cfm?c_id=1&objectid=10618572
http://whaleoil.gotcha.co.nz/

Before I begin, I just want to mention that I agree with your intentions (on a philosophical level); But we must appreciate the need for conformity to law, and appreciate the diversity of individuals which reside within the jurisdiction of these laws. If we take a self-centered, egotistical approach and act on our personal ideas in a manner which breaches these laws, then we must do so with more than 'personal-conviction'. We must propose and supply sound arguments which reflect specific points under which one can apply critical thinking and deduce a grounds for justification of our action. The points you have supplied are not sound, and I hope you can come up with a more intelligible compilation of arguments (as I do agree with your intentions) - but do not forget there are roughly 4 million people in New Zealand, so when you refer to 'releasing information which everyone wants to know', I ask you this question. What percentage of that 4 million people are your statistics based on? How many people make up the term you used 'everyone' ? I don't mean to focus on one point, but this here is a critical point. While you may have not in fact explicitly used the term 'everyone' in your entries, it is the obvious implicit point - and if it is not, that is that you DO NOT argue for a majority of people (majority could include that of a manageable and reflective subset of the population which could be theoretically spoken for) than I must indeed question the nature of your thinking!

There has to be specific structures and mechanisms of change in order to ensure that policy change occurs as a result of real empirical evidence which suggests that the change indeed reflects the desires of a majority of citizens. This is the ideal situation, but you must show in some way shape or form some movement towards this direction. Do not forget the implicit laws of impossible absolutes, or simply put, the shades of gray.

Just to point out some issues.

Cross referencing laws from other countries undermines the basics of evolutionary governmental adaption. I'm not sure what your education background is, but you must understand that governments are not not imposed upon, in a completely incoherent and spontaneous manner, to the citizens under which they govern (excluding of course during revolutions, wars etc). You could support any argument by 'picking and choosing' those laws from other nations, there is no conviction to be found in doing so. Quote 'if Michael Jackson had lived in NZ and committed the crimes etc..' - this situation is so hypothetical that it breaches any sort of sound grounds under which one could agree to your argument. Quote again 'Unfor­tu­nately we do not have the lux­ury of the pro­tec­tion of the US Con­sti­tu­tion' - and I ask you. Are you referring to the same US Constitution which was in place during the proliferation of African American slavery?, are you referring the same country ? this same constitution which has the legal right to shut your blog down on the spot (yes it does, you can confirm that for yourself).

I don't want to waste time listing more examples, but you must know that it is NOT sound to pick, mix and match laws, examples from other nations, if you can't see the logic in that then at least see that anyone could find any number of examples to support their argument in any number of ways by using this methodology. It isn't sound and it wouldn't stack up when conversing with educated individuals (let us not get into the definition of educated..for brevity's sake of course).

I don't want to go through and simply nit pick your articles. But you really need to think more about what you are doing. Your entry on the Streisand Effect is border line offensive to even those who might support your argument. I'll say a few points very quickly, but first I must do a block quote of your entry.

Quote "The Police, by charg­ing me ensured that the secret they have alleged I breached became the secret that every­one wanted to know. I didn’t do that, they did, by charg­ing a blog­ger who writes arti­cles every­day and who con­ducts most of his life very publicly." End quote.

Now lets get serious here, you and I and most individuals know that you forced the hand of the police, they must by definition of law pursue you on this matter. Do not alleviate your responsibility in this issue, after all, did you want to expose this information or not? - considering you released this information on a publicly available medium then I assume so, that yes you wanted to expose this information, therefor you must take full accountability and not offload this to a third party under which you forced their hand. This is the single most offensive part of your entry, offensive to your intentions and your credibility. Your entry on the Streisand Effect speaks only of the elementary basics and does not whatsoever appreciate the effects of 'ignoring breaches of law'. You breached the law, they must react by law, you forced their hand. Now stand up and be accountable, stand up for your cause and dont write such miss leading nonsense. Your entries conflict with your actions and other entries. This is very clear to see and is recognised phenomena explained by an individuals lack of depth, knowledge, understanding and direction on the topics covered in their correspondence.

Your article reflects the common problem with individuals such as yourself who are educated primarily via the Internet. I hope that you learn from this experience. I hope that you can employ sufficient levels of self analysis and thus appreciate your massive short comings. And if you think that to be extreme, remember, you are talking about breaching the law, human rights and everything in between. This is a serious topic and anyone who dares operate in this arena must reflect considerable capability, without which they may only work against the very cause which they intended to succeed- and more important which other intend on seeing through.

I apologize for my grammatical mistakes, I am rushed for time. I trust that you will take this message and reproduce it in its entirety. We must always take harsh criticism in order to improve. I must note it is refreshing to see individuals who at least act on what they believe.


Thanks,