After Prime Minister John Key yesterday said he learnt the suppressed identity of a prominent entertainer on the grapevine, we asked members of the public if they know who it is - and if they should have the right to.

The gossip grapevine is circumventing name suppression laws surrounding a prominent New Zealand entertainer's indecency charge, according to a sample of the public spoken to by today.

Earlier this month, the entertainer was discharged without conviction after admitting indecency during a drunken incident with a 16-year-old girl in central Wellington in March.

Debate erupted after the man was allowed permanent name suppression, and the PM reignited it with his comments yesterday.

This morning, we asked people in Auckland City, and through our Your Views pages, whether they knew who the entertainer was and what they thought of the name suppression law.

People had strong opinions on name suppression and the fairness of giving it to high-profile entertainers.

Ellyn Rickets, 20, from Rothesay Bay, said her brother told her who the entertainer was.

"He tried to google it to make sure but couldn't find it."

She said name suppression was designed to protect the person until it is proven they have done the crime.

"It's to do with not affecting the rest of their lives," she said.

Student Sam Bradley, 22, from Milford, also knew who the entertainer was.

"Everyone at uni knows, pretty much," he said.

However, he supported the entertainer's name being suppressed. "I mean, if his name gets put out there the punishment outweighs the crime," he said.

Carl Honey, 46, from Mairangi Bay, disagreed. Although he did not know who the entertainer was he said name suppression was "totally stacked against Joe Average".

"It's too selective. It's too freely accessible to people that should probably face up to their responsibilities.

"Its casting a pall over all of the entertainers and people are wondering who could it be.

"If you've got money you can get away with anything. It's got to be in the public interest to out these people because if it were you or I, would we get that? I hate it."

Most people were not in favour of name suppression for the entertainer.

Michelle Cawpor, 35, from Helensville, said the man should "absolutely not" have name suppression.

"If you do a crime you should be forced to admit to it. It's a consequence for an action."

She supported name suppression only for those who are victims of a crime, not those that are accused of the offence.

Daniel Andrew, 25, from Christchurch said the man should not be allowed suppression just because of his status.

"I think anyone that is found guilty of something like that should be known to general public."

He also supported name suppression for victims.

Paul Sinden, 59, from Waiheke, said people with influence only get name suppression, but "it depends what damage it will do to society if it goes against them".

The discussion on our Your Views pages took a similar theme, with some saying innocent entertainers were being wrongly gossiped about and others saying the entertainer should front up.