Previous 18 / 40 Next

(iii) [47] a publication on a news media Internet site: (d) any transmission (whether live or not) of proceedings in the House of Representatives: (e) any publication on the Internet, or other electronic medium, of personal political views by an individual who does not make or receive a payment in respect of the publication of those views. Plainly the legislature had in mind a concept of advertising that encourages or persuades people to vote in particular ways. It specifies the effect that an election advertisement must be apt to have on a target audience when published. As will become apparent, after interpreting the legislation as a whole we do not find it necessary to qualify the definition by seeking further meaning in “advertisement”. [48] The definition declares that “none of the following” is an election advertisement. This language suggests that the list that follows does not comprise exceptions carved out from a broad definition; rather, it informs the meaning of election advertisement. The list includes contact information for a member of Parliament, the transmission of proceedings in the House, editorial content and any publication of personal political views by an individual on an electronic medium provided that person does not make or receive payment for publication. [49] We make several general points about the legislation. First, it confirms that the legislature was concerned to ensure that wealth did not exercise disproportionate influence on decisions about who is to govern and what policies are to be pursued.50 It achieves that purpose by limiting the amounts that can be spent on election advertising by various classes of promoter. [50] Second, the legislature also wanted to ensure that promoters of election advertisements would be identified. The purpose statement in the 2007 Act aimed to strengthen the law by doing a number of things, one of which was to prevent the undue influence of wealth on elections, and another to minimise the perception of 50 This objective can be traced to the 1986 report of the Royal Commission on the Electoral System: The Royal Commission on the Electoral System Towards a Better Democracy (December 1986) at chapter 8.

Select target paragraph3

● ● ●

Electoral Commission v. Watson

Judgment

Question Presented: Whether the video and song Planet Key are considered election advertisements and/or election programs.

Alleged Acts: Planet Key is an satirical song and video that was intended to be broadcast during the 2014 Election. The video included commentary on the Prime Minister’s upbringing, early careers, and relationships. The video also included a message note to vote for Mr. Key “if they wanted compassion.” Watson and Jones, the creators of the song and video were not affiliated with any political group and paid all expenses. Watson and Jones sent out the video within the three-month regulated period surrounding the 2014 elections. The Electoral Commission intervened in its broadcasting because the classified the song and video as an “election program” under the Broadcasting Act.

Procedural history: The Commission produced an advisory opinion stating that the broadcast was an election program because it was reasonably considered to encourage voters not to vote for Mr. Key or his political party. Further, the broadcast was considered an election advertisement under the election act because it was avaliable for public download even though it was the individual political views of Watson and Jones. Thus, Watson was required to include a promoter statement in order to comply with the Electoral Act. Watson alleged that his individual political rights were limited because he was not able to publish the song.

Summary: The first considered that the creators of the video and song were not themselves campaigners under the definition of election advertisements. They were only expressing individual political rights. The costs to create the song and video were less than eight hundred dollars, so even if theses were advertising expenses, they were not substantial. Further, the court considered that the material denigrated Mr. Key but did not encourage voting implicitly or explicitly. Thus, any impact would be too indirect to actionable by the court. The song and video had a clear entertainment value rather than factual accuracy. The court considered that video and song were never dispensed through a broadcaster, but through an politics based radio program — except after the Commission’s intervention. Thus, the court could not determine whether the video would surmount to advocacy because the context was not permitted to take place (i.e. balancing with other opinions). The video is not an election program, but rather an election comment because it was offered by individuals that were not candidates or political representation.

Conclusion: The song and video are not election programs or election advertisement. Thus, the appeal is dismissed.

Legal Issue(s)

Social Media

Applicable Law(s): Electoral Act; Broadcasting Act

Region: Asia-Pacific

Country: New Zealand

Language of Decision

English

Court: Appellate Court

Election Type: General

Date of decision: Oct 20, 2016

Geolocation

Latitude: -41.263917612080235

Longitude: 174.77498988598148

: Geolocation

Primary Documents

Electoral Commission v. Watson.pdf
English
Download View

Election Judgments - IFES

Select target paragraph3

Electoral Commission v. Watson

Primary Documents

Notifications