Police investigate a car park scam during Foo Fighters concert, co-ordinated treatment strategy for long Covid and leaked report shows links to avoidable deaths.
Video / 1News / NZHerald
Prime Minister Christopher Luxon has been targeted by digital creators depicting him touting his “favourite” pornography sites online.
Using a banner in a likeness of the National Party’s customary blue, it has an image of Luxon and the words “My favourite porno sites”.
It is appearing as anadvertisement in a prominent position on popular pornographic website Pornhub.
“Kia ora fellow New Zealanders, this is Chris Luxon!” people read when they click on the page.
“Today, I am proud to announce my favourite porn sites to help you relax. Cheers and enjoy!”
The domain name chrisluxon.org has also been registered and links to pornographic material.
Luxon told reporters at his first post-Cabinet press conference of the year he had been informed of the advertisement and said: “It’s obviously fake, it’s an issue for the National Party to pick up.”
A National Party spokeswoman said: “We are aware of the website operating with malicious intent against National Party leader Christopher Luxon – the website is fake and not in any way authorised by the National Party and its leader.
“We have reported the website to the relevant authorities – including CERT NZ [New Zealand’s Computer Emergency Response Team] who are investigating the site and its misuse of National Party branding and photos.”
The fake ad of Christopher Luxon promoting 'my favourite porno sites' on Pornhub.
The page provides links to porn, hookup and camera sites that include AdultFriendFinder, F**kbook, Fling.com, Brazzers, BangBros and strip chats.
It also has links to three OnlyFans sites.
A disclaimer on the site, which needed to be clicked on to to be accessed, said the page was “a satire and parody” publication.
“All content contained within this website and on accompanying social media accounts, however similar to real events, is fictitious,” it reads.
“Any real, semi-real or similar names, places, people, products, services and locales are used purely for satirical purposes, and the corresponding story details are purely fictional.”
It said the contents are to be considered “satire, parody, surrealism, and humor” and that any resemblance to actual persons, businesses, or events was entirely coincidental.
They said the images used consisted of original, stock and creative commons photos.
“We have done our best to attribute the creators of such photos based on the information available to us,” it said.
“Use of these works does not suggest that the respective authors endorse us or our use of the images.”
Details of who owns the site’s domain have been redacted on the grounds of privacy.
The page creators have been approached for comment.
Former PMs Jacinda Ardern and John Key; Shane Reti, Simon Gault’s likenesses used in scams, deepfakes
Concern over scams and deepfakes involving prominent Kiwis hit headlines two years ago when then-prime minister Jacinda Ardern’s image was manipulated in a video to make it appear she was smoking methamphetamine.
Scammers posted an image of the National politician and doctor alongside a caption attributed to him: “Shane Reti: nail fungus infects the blood and causes necrosis. There is a solution, but it’s not for everyone.”
The scam included fake screenshots of articles claiming to be written by the Herald.
What recourse does Luxon have?
Brent Carey, the chief executive of New Zealand’s online safety watchdog Netsafe, said people could report image-based abuse to them at Netsafe and they would follow up with the content host or website service provider to investigate whether it breached the law.
Carey said if the matter couldn’t be resolved between parties through mediation, people could make a civil complaint to the District Court. Other areas of law, such as intellectual property and defamation could also be relevant, he said.
“Under the Harmful Digital Communications Act, if you’ve suffered serious emotional distress because of online material, you can apply to the District Court for it to take action to fix the problem.
“For example, [the District Court could] order the material to be taken down or order the person responsible to apologise to you,” Carey said.
Senior University of Auckland law lecturer Nikki Chamberlain gave similar advice, and explained further: “The defamation course of action is essential saying that by using his [Luxon’s] image, there is an innuendo there that he is endorsing business on the pornography website.
“It’s been published, and clearly it’s not true, so in that respect, he potentially could have a defamation course of action.”
Chamberlain said, though, there was a tort - or civil wrong - relating to the “misappropriation of likeness” available in other countries’ legal systems but not New Zealand’s.
Regarding the disclaimer on the advert’s website saying it was “satire or parody”, Chamberlain said the success of any legal action Luxon or National took against the advertiser would depend on how prominent the disclaimer was.
“However, obviously they would argue that clearly, the reasonable person would see the advertisement and realise that it is satire. I think, practically, they [Luxon or National] need to immediately write to the webpage provider asking for the advertisement to be removed - it’s a misrepresentation, passing off, it’s a breach of privacy and information.”
