Another pointless name suppression

The identity of a top Kiwi entertainer who laughed after trying to force a teenager to perform a sex act will remain secret to protect his career, according to the Dominion Post.

It is not a very good secret. The Dominion Post gave it away by revealing where and on what date the offence occurred, as well as his age range and the fact that he was not from the city where the gig was. I would have too, had I been the journo. But calling it "medium to low level" offending - hmmm, probably not the best choice of words.

Journalists do not like suppression orders of this kind and they`ll do anything they can to drop subtle identifying hints without being seen to identify the offender, given that it was already reported that the man played a gig the night before.

If the courts are going to insist on name suppression and acquit someone of an offence because he is well-known, the least they can do is insist on suppression of details that would lead to identification. Or preferably, name him to prevent people dropping not so subtle hints all over the Internet, and altering a certain wikipedia site (which has six times the number of usual visits so far today) telling the world he is a sex offender, the edits of which are still visible.

If all people who read this blog already know who this man is, I could name him. I will not be breaching suppression by naming him, as the naming him will not lead to his identity. As I am unsure how many readers of this blog know who this guy is, I`ll refrain from naming him.