It seems appropriate that it is the whale hunting season.
However, whales of the blogging variety appear to be even more endangered than cetacean ones.
I don't have sympathy for Cameron Slater, because basically that well is dry, but the reaction in the media and internet to his latest activities is interesting.
I have also written a little about some of those activities, though I have tried to steer clear of any assessment of whether Slater is guilty or innocent. The same cannot be said for a large section of the blogosphere, particularly on the left. Slater's past disregard for nuance and civil discourse makes him a target for many. There is currently a thread up on the Standard on Slater (no, I won't link to it) that would make most people ill, and which is as bad as anything you'll find on Kiwiblog.
Now the story has moved into the mainstream media, and various "experts" are opining as to what can be done to stop Slater. I posted an article last night on the potentially inadequate penalties for breaching name suppression laws, but I am not pre-supposing Slater is guilty and must be stopped. Although I am still happy to state that should Slater be deliberately engaging in breaking the law, he may have a few challenges ahead of him.
But some of these "experts" are pulling out the statute books to find things to pin on Slater, and they seem to have already determined his guilt. Maybe they should leave well alone. I'm by no means an expert on the doctrine of sub judice (it doesn't come up a lot in my commercial IP practice!), but this just feels like we're getting into dangerous territory.