...of what I call 'Canute Syndrome'. There isn't a little local NZ internet for little local NZ people, and courts are going to have to come to terms with that. NZ has very strict 'suppression orders' at times; not too long ago, a fairly prominent politician went on trial on certain eyebrow-raising criminal matters (historical allegations I believe) which would have been front-page news in any other country. In NZ, the entire case was suppressed; the media could only report on it in the vaguest possible terms (and without so much as hinting about the identity of the politician, or even that he *was* a politician, it was just 'a prominent New Zealander appeared in court...') thanks to sweeping suppression orders that applied before, during, and after the case.
We've seen similar stupidity here in the UK, most preposterously when the then Attorney General insisted that the injunctions issued by British courts protecting the new identity of Jon Venables applied to the entire world, and that they made it a crime for anyone, anywhere to publish any information concerning the matter - which is of course facially wrong and fractally nonsensical; how could he purport to suggest that a British court could override the first amendment in the USA, just for starters?!
(Interestingly, every time the story comes up, every UK newspaper report I've seen mentions that injunction, and continues to parrot the line about it having jurisdiction over the entire world, uncritically. I wonder why; they *must* know it's a load of rubbish!)