Do police consider it illegal to link to material later classified as objectionable?
Roger Brown made this Official Information request to New Zealand Police
This request has an unknown status. We're waiting for Roger Brown to read recent responses and update the status.
From: Roger Brown
Dear New Zealand Police,
1a) Who recommended to Police that charges be laid against the 'Counterspin Media' cranks for posting a link to a website that allowed users who made the choice to access that website to play a video that was- days after the original post was made- classified as objectionable by the Office of Film and Literature Classification?
1b) Who recommended to Police that charges be laid against the 'Counterspin Media' cranks for posting a document that makes broadly similar claims to said video, which OFLC has confirmed is not, itself, classified as objectionable?
1c) Please provide all communications made within Police and with Crown Solicitors and other agencies, prior to laying these charges.
2a) The Films, Videos, and Publications Classification Act 1993 provides a very clear definition of the meaning of 'distribute' in the context of the offenses with which the cranks have been charged. It is very obvious that the act only covers the actual electronic transmission of objectionable publications, whether on its own (publishing/hosting objectionable publications yourself on your own website) or as part of a wider set of material (publishing/hosting a website which includes offensive material as a subset of the content of a web page, or embedded on such). Please provide any documents, inclusive but not limited to the 'Objectionable publications' part of the Police Manual, relevant to how Police reinterpret the Act in the context of publications on the World Wide Web.
2b) Do Police consider linking (providing an internet location that a user might choose to visit) to content that has been classified as objectionable to constitute 'distributing' objectionable publications?
2c) Do Police consider linking to web pages that include embedded links to content that has been classified as objectionable to constitute 'distributing' objectionable publications?
2d) Do Police consider linking to web pages that link to content that has been classified as objectionable to constitute 'distributing' objectionable publications?
2e) Do Police consider linking to web pages that include embedded links to content that is classified as objectionable after the links are originally posted to constitute 'distributing' objectionable publications?
Kind regards,
Roger Brown
From: Ministerial Services
New Zealand Police
Tēnā koe Roger
I acknowledge receipt of your Official Information Act (OIA) request below, received by New Zealand Police on 10 September 2022.
Your request is being actioned pursuant to the OIA. You can expect a response to your request on or before 7 October 2022.
Kind regards, Dylan
Ministerial Services PNHQ
________________________________________
From: Roger Brown <[FOI #20508 email]>
Sent: 10 September 2022 12:52
To: Ministerial Services
Subject: [EXTERNAL] Official Information request - Do police consider it illegal to link to material later classified as objectionable?
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe.
Dear New Zealand Police,
1a) Who recommended to Police that charges be laid against the 'Counterspin Media' cranks for posting a link to a website that allowed users who made the choice to access that website to play a video that was- days after the original post was made- classified as objectionable by the Office of Film and Literature Classification?
1b) Who recommended to Police that charges be laid against the 'Counterspin Media' cranks for posting a document that makes broadly similar claims to said video, which OFLC has confirmed is not, itself, classified as objectionable?
1c) Please provide all communications made within Police and with Crown Solicitors and other agencies, prior to laying these charges.
2a) The Films, Videos, and Publications Classification Act 1993 provides a very clear definition of the meaning of 'distribute' in the context of the offenses with which the cranks have been charged. It is very obvious that the act only covers the actual electronic transmission of objectionable publications, whether on its own (publishing/hosting objectionable publications yourself on your own website) or as part of a wider set of material (publishing/hosting a website which includes offensive material as a subset of the content of a web page, or embedded on such). Please provide any documents, inclusive but not limited to the 'Objectionable publications' part of the Police Manual, relevant to how Police reinterpret the Act in the context of publications on the World Wide Web.
2b) Do Police consider linking (providing an internet location that a user might choose to visit) to content that has been classified as objectionable to constitute 'distributing' objectionable publications?
2c) Do Police consider linking to web pages that include embedded links to content that has been classified as objectionable to constitute 'distributing' objectionable publications?
2d) Do Police consider linking to web pages that link to content that has been classified as objectionable to constitute 'distributing' objectionable publications?
2e) Do Police consider linking to web pages that include embedded links to content that is classified as objectionable after the links are originally posted to constitute 'distributing' objectionable publications?
Kind regards,
Roger Brown
-------------------------------------------------------------------
This is an Official Information request made via the FYI website.
Please use this email address for all replies to this request:
[FOI #20508 email]
Is [New Zealand Police request email] the wrong address for Official Information requests to New Zealand Police? If so, please contact us using this form:
https://fyi.org.nz/change_request/new?bo...
Disclaimer: This message and any reply that you make will be published on the internet. Our privacy and copyright policies:
https://fyi.org.nz/help/officers
If you find this service useful as an Official Information officer, please ask your web manager to link to us from your organisation's OIA or LGOIMA page.
show quoted sections
From: IR.Central
New Zealand Police
Tēnā koe Roger,
I acknowledge receipt of your request below, received by Police on
10/09/2022.
Your reference number is IR-01-22-27618.
You will receive a response to your request on or before 07/10/2022 unless
an extension is needed.
If you have any queries, please feel free to contact the IR team on
[1][email address]
Ngā mihi,
Initial Assessor
Central Region Information Request Team
Service Delivery
[2][email address]
[3]wordmark transparent
[4]rainbow icon [5][IMG][6][IMG][7][IMG][8][IMG]
===============================================================
WARNING
The information contained in this email message is intended for the
addressee only and may contain privileged information. It may also be
subject to the provisions of section 50 of the Policing Act 2008, which
creates an offence to have unlawful possession of Police property. If you
are not the intended recipient of this message or have received this
message in error, you must not peruse, use, distribute or copy this
message or any of its contents.
Also note, the views expressed in this message may not necessarily reflect
those of the New Zealand Police. If you have received this message in
error, please email or telephone the sender immediately
References
Visible links
1. mailto:[email address]
2. mailto:[email address]
4. https://www.police.govt.nz/contact-us/lo...
5. http://www.police.govt.nz/facebook
6. http://www.police.govt.nz/twitter
7. http://www.police.govt.nz/instagram
8. https://www.youtube.com/user/policenz
From: IR.Central
New Zealand Police
Tçnâ koe Roger,
I acknowledge receipt of your request received by Police on 10/09/2022.
Your reference number is IR-01-22-27618.
You will receive a response to your request on or before 07/10/2022 unless
an extension is needed.
If you have any queries, please feel free to contact the IR team on
[1][email address]
Ngâ mihi,
T Keene
Information Request Team – Central Region
E [2][email address]
[3]wordmark transparent
[4]rainbow icon [5][IMG][6][IMG][7][IMG][8][IMG]
===============================================================
WARNING
The information contained in this email message is intended for the
addressee only and may contain privileged information. It may also be
subject to the provisions of section 50 of the Policing Act 2008, which
creates an offence to have unlawful possession of Police property. If you
are not the intended recipient of this message or have received this
message in error, you must not peruse, use, distribute or copy this
message or any of its contents.
Also note, the views expressed in this message may not necessarily reflect
those of the New Zealand Police. If you have received this message in
error, please email or telephone the sender immediately
References
Visible links
1. mailto:[email address]
2. mailto:[email address]
4. https://www.police.govt.nz/contact-us/lo...
5. http://www.police.govt.nz/facebook
6. http://www.police.govt.nz/twitter
7. http://www.police.govt.nz/instagram
8. https://www.youtube.com/user/policenz
From: Ministerial Services
New Zealand Police
Tēnā koe Roger
I refer to your request of 10 September 2022 for the following
information:
1a) Who recommended to Police that charges be laid against the 'Counter
spin Media' cranks for posting a link to a website that allowed users who
made the choice to access that website to play a video that was- days
after the original post was made- classified as objectionable by the
Office of Film and Literature Classification?
1b) Who recommended to Police that charges be laid against the 'Counter
spin Media' cranks for posting a document that makes broadly similar
claims to said video, which OFLC has confirmed is not, itself, classified
as objectionable?
1c) Please provide all communications made within Police and with Crown
Solicitors and other agencies, priorto laying these charges.
2a) The Films, Videos, and Publications Classification Act 1993 provides a
very clear definition of the meaning of 'distribute' in the context of the
offenses with which the cranks have been charged. It is very obvious that
the act only covers the actual electronic transmission of objectionable
publications, whether on its own(publishing/hosting objectionable
publications yourself on your own website) or as part of a wider set of
material (publishing/hosting a website which includes offensive material
as a subset of the content of a webpage, or embedded on such). Please
provide any documents, inclusive but not limited to the 'Objectionable
publications' part of the Police Manual, relevant to how Police
reinterpret the Act in the context of publications on the World Wide Web.
2b) Do Police consider linking (providing an internet location that a user
might choose to visit) to content that has been classified as
objectionable to constitute 'distributing' objectionable publications?
2c) Do Police consider linking to web pages that include embedded links to
content that has been classified as objectionable to constitute
'distributing' objectionable publications?
2d) Do Police consider linking to web pages that link to content that has
been classified as objectionable to constitute 'distributing'
objectionable publications?
2e) Do Police consider linking to web pages that include embedded links to
content that is classified as objectionable after
Unfortunately we were not be able to meet the due date of 7 October 2022.
I can confirm that your request has been compiled and is currently
progressing through the end portion of our internal consultation process.
Although I am unable to confirm a release date at this stage, I expect you
will receive a response within three working days.
Please accept our apologies for the delay in providing you with a response
to your query. We are endeavouring to provide this to you as soon as
possible.
Ngā mihi
Julián (he/him)
Ministerial Services Advisor
NZ Police National Headquarters Wellington
If you’re wondering about the use of pronouns in email signatures, you can
find [1]more information [2]here about how sharing pronouns can help
create a sense of belonging and respect.
[3]wordmark transparent
===============================================================
WARNING
The information contained in this email message is intended for the
addressee only and may contain privileged information. It may also be
subject to the provisions of section 50 of the Policing Act 2008, which
creates an offence to have unlawful possession of Police property. If you
are not the intended recipient of this message or have received this
message in error, you must not peruse, use, distribute or copy this
message or any of its contents.
Also note, the views expressed in this message may not necessarily reflect
those of the New Zealand Police. If you have received this message in
error, please email or telephone the sender immediately
References
Visible links
1. https://ssc.govt.nz/our-work/diversity-a...
2. https://www.publicservice.govt.nz/our-wo...
From: IR.Central
New Zealand Police
Good Afternoon Roger,
Please find attached our response to your request.
Your request is now closed.
Kind Regards
T Keene
Information Request Team – Central Region
E [1][email address]
[2]wordmark transparent
[3]rainbow icon [4][IMG][5][IMG][6][IMG][7][IMG]
===============================================================
WARNING
The information contained in this email message is intended for the
addressee only and may contain privileged information. It may also be
subject to the provisions of section 50 of the Policing Act 2008, which
creates an offence to have unlawful possession of Police property. If you
are not the intended recipient of this message or have received this
message in error, you must not peruse, use, distribute or copy this
message or any of its contents.
Also note, the views expressed in this message may not necessarily reflect
those of the New Zealand Police. If you have received this message in
error, please email or telephone the sender immediately
References
Visible links
1. mailto:[email address]
3. https://www.police.govt.nz/contact-us/lo...
4. http://www.police.govt.nz/facebook
5. http://www.police.govt.nz/twitter
6. http://www.police.govt.nz/instagram
7. https://www.youtube.com/user/policenz
Things to do with this request
- Add an annotation (to help the requester or others)
- Download a zip file of all correspondence
Mark Hanna left an annotation ()
I see NZ Police have withheld several sections of the "Objectionable publications" Police Manual chapter they released to you, having asserted that withholding this information is necessary because "the making available of the information would be likely to prejudice the maintenance of the law."
The Ombudsman's guidance on decisions to withhold information under section 6 of the Official Information Act 1982 is clear:
"It is not sufficient to simply assert that disclosure of the information will have a prejudicial effect. The public sector agency must be able to identify, with sufficient particularity, the nature of the prejudicial effect and explain how such prejudice will occur in order to meet the tests for withholding in section 6."
"The phrase "would be likely" requires more than mere possibility that disclosure may have a prejudicial effect. The Court of Appeal has interpreted the phrase "would be likely" to mean "a serious or real and substantial risk to a protected interest, a risk that might well eventuate”."
https://www.ombudsman.parliament.nz/reso...
For the past several months, I have been collating Police Manual chapters that have been released by NZ Police. In this work I have seen several instances in which NZ Police have released a document twice, once with significant information withheld under section 6(c) of the OIA and once with that information released. In each case, I could see no clear way in which the release of this information could possibly be likely to prejudice the maintenance of the law.
I recommend you complain to the Ombudsman about NZ Police's decision to withhold information under section 6(c) of the OIA in response to your request. The Ombudsman will be able to view the information in order to form an opinion on whether or not NZ Police's decision was reasonable, and may recommend that NZ Police reconsider its response and release some or all of the withheld information.
Link to this