Linkage

[mundens]

• 
  "Pill" Causes Divorce and Damages Our Evolution?Basically, human females are sexually attracted by smell to genetically different males. When they start taking the pill, female's sexual preferences change to more genetically similar males thus reducing our genetic variation. Also, it's reportedly well known among marriage counsellors that one of

Comments

[seraphs_folly]

Hey gorgeous - great links :)

No chat on for you today huh?

[repton_infinity]

A NZ Judge Lets The World Know He's An Idiot

I disagree... What if these guys are innocent? Imagine you're hiring one of them. You're unlikely to go looking through back issues of the newspaper searching for their name. But you'll probably google them. If his name were published online, you'd find hits for "JOHN DOE ACCUSED OF MURDER", and probably turn him down. I'm assuming the suppression order will be lifted if the guys are found guilty.

For those saying "Streisand effect": what if the judge does the same thing with every other high-profile case? What if all New Zealand judges make online pre-trial name suppression routine? The outraged bloggers will get bored after a while...

[adrexia]

What does this mean for online versions/archives of print publications though? If the court order is indefinite, would that mean that those publications couldn't be archived online? Would there be an expiration date?

[buzzandhum]

I'm also of the "I don't think the judge is an idiot" school of thought, at least not right now.

This'll be interesting, to see how it pans out, what may be the result of any appeals.

Some of the commentary I've read indicates that the judge is highly respected for his ability to ennuciate complex arguments, set precedents, and test the applicabilty of precedents and case law.

If so, this would seem to indicate that the judge isn't naively thinking he could control internet comment on this case, rather that he's putting out there a precedent on a relevant case (i.e., a crime with both a high media attention *and* a very interested internet savvy public given the ages of those concerned), and seeing how it flies. The issues about the ruling's effectiveness, enforcability, legality and usefulness are probably exactly the questions he'd like the judiciary, the media and the public to answer as we move forward into the 'new media.'

At least, that's what I hope he's doing =)