Mark Hamilton against the NZ Herald
Case Number: 3552
Council Meeting: 21 October 2024
Decision: No Grounds to Proceed
Publication: New Zealand Herald
Principle:
Accuracy, Fairness and Balance
Privacy
Comment and Fact
Columns, Blogs, Opinion and Letters
Headlines and Captions
Confidentiality
Ruling Categories: Social Media
- The New Zealand Herald published an article on July 18,2024, headlined Kiwi Property manager Mark Hamilton under fire after calling blogger a ‘pedophile’ over work email.
- The story reported how Mr Hamilton got into trouble with his employer after he used his company’s email address to send critical comments to a blogger who had written a Q&A on transgender health, gender affirming care and puberty blockers.
- In his emails Mr Hamilton said “Take me off your list. I don’t do genital mutilation of minors – its sick” and “Ok pedophile (sic)”
- After the writer of the column posted screen grabs of Mr Hamilton’s comments onto her Facebook page Kiwi Property issued a statement saying it did not condone the inappropriate and disappointing comments made from a staff member’s email address and “was now working with the individual concerned to address the situation.”
- The story reported Mr Hamilton claiming that he had been doxed on the Facebook post. It also reported the columnist’s comment that “You can have as many opinions as you like but using company email is pretty idiotic.”
- Mr Hamilton asked the NZ Herald to remove the story from its website and all associated social media platforms.
- He said publication of his social media posts was a serious privacy breach that had caused him significant harm, including humiliation, loss of dignity and emotional distress. This appeared to violate Principle 11 of the Privacy Act which prohibits the unauthorised disclosure of personal information.
- “Due to the negative publicity surrounding this matter, I have been unable to return to work and are experiencing difficulty securing new employment...The continued publication of this article...directly hinders my ability to find employment and undermines my ability to meet basic necessities.”
- In response the NZ Herald noted the media is exempt from the Privacy Act for the purposes of newsgathering.
- “Our position is that by emailing a well-known journalist to provide feedback about a published article your expectation of privacy was unrealistic.”
- “In terms of ‘negative publicity’ this issue was in the public arena before the NZ Herald article. This is the consequence of your actions, not the media coverage.
- “You were contacted by our reporter and offered the opportunity to explain your position and you elected not to comment.
- “We note your employer described your conduct as "inappropriate and disappointing". Again, this situation was in play before the NZ Herald article. Accordingly, we decline your request to take the article down.”
- In his complaint to the NZ Media Council Mr Hamilton said it was troubling that the NZ Herald had chosen to retain this article despite the fact that Facebook removed the writer’s original post for violating their community standards.
- “I believe the continued presence of this defamatory article is unjust and disproportionate to any perceived wrongdoing on my part.”
- The NZ Media Council believes the article was a newsworthy story about a dispute that blew up on social media and how the careless posting of abusive comments from an employer’s email address can have serious career limiting consequences.
- The Media Council confirms the NZ Herald’s point that the media are exempt from the Privacy Act for the purposes of newsgathering. It can offer no assistance under that statute or consider defamation claims – that is a matter for the Courts.
- The Media Council can only consider this complaint under its own principles and Mr Hamilton has cited Principles (1) Accuracy, Fairness and Balance; (2) Privacy; (4) Comment and Fact; (5) Columns, Blogs, Opinion and Letters; (6), Headlines and Captions; and (8) Confidentiality.
- Mr Hamilton does not fall under any category of persons who are entitled to privacy protection under Principle (2). He is not a person or relative of a person charged with a crime, and there is no evidence that he is suffering from trauma or grief. The story is of public interest. The Media Council does not consider a case has been made to show how any of the other principles have been breached.
- Decision: There were no grounds to proceed.