Can suppression orders survive in the digital age?

The Post’s Nikki Macdonald asks whether court-ordered suppressions can realistically hold back global news in an era of instant sharing.

Fugitive father Tom Phillips’ death and the recovery of his children were reported by CNN, BBC and the New York Times before New Zealand media received an injunction on specific details.

The 2018 murder of Grace Millane saw her killer’s name widely circulated overseas and online despite suppression. “It was a huge issue,” former justice minister Andrew Little said, accusing Google at the time of “flipping the bird” to New Zealand law when its trending emails breached the order.

“If it can be downloaded and looked at here, then that’s where publication occurs,” said University of Canterbury professor Ursula Cheer. But, she added, enforcement is difficult, and Crown Law usually does not pursue overseas breaches.

Other examples show workarounds: the Daily Mail geo-blocked its article for New Zealand readers, while the New York Times restricted reporting on Cardinal George Pell’s trial to its print edition to reduce risk. Commonwealth countries are exploring a model law for cross-border enforcement, though progress has been slow.

Breaches of suppression or injunctions can carry fines or jail terms, but prosecutions are rare. Courts, however, maintain that suppressions remain useful even when partially breached. “They reckoned a third of the people in the UK knew about it, and so they said ‘but that means that two-thirds of people still don’t’,” said Victoria University professor Nicole Moreham of a UK ruling.

Some suggest global platforms like Google need to build respect for suppression orders into their systems, even if practical enforcement remains “tricky in the social media age.”

Centrist.co.nz