Internet bloggers are breaking the law when it comes to high profile criminal cases.

The Graham Capill case has already been affected, with a New Zealand blog identifying him days before his name suppression was lifted.

Now the fresh sexual assault charges the former Christian Heritage party leader is facing are evoking a storm of opinion on the internet, some of which pushes legal boundaries.

Media law expert Professor John Burrows says any comment stating an accused person is guilty, breaks the law.

He says almost without any doubt, this is contempt of court.

He says the question is whether what is said could prejudice a fair trial, which could easily be the case if strong comment is made

Professor Burrows says he has seen plenty of things on blogs which breach the law, adding that if their authors could be traced, the law could do something about it.

Traditional news sites on the Internet are largely staffed by professional journalists who have been trained to avoid breaking the law. Weblogs, on the other hand, are more like personal diaries, published on the Internet for all to see.

David Farrar, author of Kiwiblog, has posted on the topic of Graham Capill and agrees this is something bloggers must be careful about.

He says the law is far from clear as to what liability they may have for defamatory comments posted by readers.

He insists breaking defamation and name suppression laws are the exception rather than the rule.