*ZIP UP Under Doctrine of Public Interest, Online Safety Commissioner
*We beg to agree with RICHARD NAIDU, a former journalist colleague from the 1980's, to Online Safety Commission: | |
Fijileaks: The Doctrine of Public Interest in the context of journalism refers to the principle that certain information, even if private or confidential, should be disclosed to the public if it serves a broader societal benefit...including shooting lurid private videos while holding public office at the taxpayers expense.
*Meanwhile, Hell Hath No Fury Like an Old Man Scorned:
 |  |
"Section 24 does not exist to protect an accountable public figure from embarrassment."
Dear Online Safety Commission. Sorry, but you are wrong and you owe it to the public to get it right.
Your warning to the media of “consequences” for circulating the now infamous video of a senior corrections officer in a nightclub brawl is unwarranted and ill-judged. You claim to respect public interest journalism and freedom of expression, but your statement is exactly the opposite of what you say.
It is clear that for there to be an offence under section 24 of the Act (first part below) there must be intent to harm an individual. Individuals or media organisations taking steps to hold a senior public official to account for his actions in a public place do not have that intent. In simple terms, section 24 exists to protect people vulnerable to publication by others of private photos, communications or other personal matter which are of no legitimate interest to anyone else.
Section 24 does not exist to protect an accountable public figure from embarrassment.
You say that respect for rule of law must guide our actions. So please re-think your statement with due respect to citizens’ freedom both to impart and to receive information under s.17 of the Constitution.
Your warning to the media of “consequences” for circulating the now infamous video of a senior corrections officer in a nightclub brawl is unwarranted and ill-judged. You claim to respect public interest journalism and freedom of expression, but your statement is exactly the opposite of what you say.
It is clear that for there to be an offence under section 24 of the Act (first part below) there must be intent to harm an individual. Individuals or media organisations taking steps to hold a senior public official to account for his actions in a public place do not have that intent. In simple terms, section 24 exists to protect people vulnerable to publication by others of private photos, communications or other personal matter which are of no legitimate interest to anyone else.
Section 24 does not exist to protect an accountable public figure from embarrassment.
You say that respect for rule of law must guide our actions. So please re-think your statement with due respect to citizens’ freedom both to impart and to receive information under s.17 of the Constitution.
 Filipe Batiwale  |  |
  |  |
CYBER BULLING: Commissioner, CUT THE CRAP. The Acting Prison Commissioner, drunk, wearing a white shirt with the Fiji Prison logo on it, was annoying young party-goers and ended up punching one of them
From Fijileaks Archive. Are we seeing the return of the Old Bad Days?
