10 ms·

New Zealand is making cyber bullying a specific crime

45 points by anu_gupta 11y ago

x0054 11y ago
This is a law that will never help a single person, and eventually will be used and abused against people the state finds undesirable. Really sad to see freedom of speech being killed off yet again in an idiotic pursuit of an illusion of safety.
- onion2k 11y ago
  This is a law that will never help a single person, and eventually will be used and abused against people the state finds undesirable. Most countries having laws that limit freedom in favour of protecting people from abuse. They're used frequently, and they do work (at least to punish if not deter). A law being abused by the state is a problem though; hopefully the New Zealand government will word theirs to protect against that happening. Really sad to see freedom of speech being killed off yet again in an idiotic pursuit of an illusion of safety. Freedom of speech is not absolute. It never really has been. You've never been free (in the specific sense of 'free' meaning 'a right protected by law') to lie about other people, to be abuse other people, to be obscene, to threaten other people, to copy other people's speech. There's a long list of case law about people who want to be free to say things and have been denied that right - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_free_speech_exceptions https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_free_speech_exce... Saying, printing, or posting online things that are designed to abuse another individual is not, and should not be, protected speech.
  - baddox 11y ago
    > You've never been free (in the specific sense of 'free' meaning 'a right protected by law') to lie about other people, to be abuse other people, to be obscene, to threaten other people, to copy other people's speech. Obscenity is the easiest one in that list to argue ought be legal.
    - AdeptusAquinas 11y ago
      Obscenity in this context likely means obscenity AT someone. I.e. sending unsolicited naked pictures or revenge porn etc..
      - x0054 11y ago
        Why can't that be covered under normal harassment laws? Why do we need an entire new law, with very broad and vague definitions, to cover something that's clearly already covered by already existing laws.
        AdeptusAquinas 11y ago
        The definitions are actually very narrow and specific if you read the text. And I imagine a specific law is necessary to clarify things for the justice system, who otherwise might not be sure whether such things are prosecutable when they occur via some new app or service online.
        vacri 11y ago
        Most such laws were written before the explosion of social media, which is less than two decades old in the public mainstream.
  - mattdw 11y ago
    Unfortunately the law provides no exemptions for media, or against public figures, and truth is no defense. All that is required is that you caused harm and it is found that you intended to. So for example, exposing the corruption of a politician (online) may well be illegal under the act.
  - chroma 11y ago
    In your examples, you readily equivocate civil and criminal law. The punishments and standards of evidence differ quite a bit. You also reference US cases that most free speech advocates (including the ACLU) disagree with. Reams could be written teasing out details, but I'll skip over that and get to the core of my disagreement. I really dislike framing in terms of "freedom of speech." Many of the first lions of free speech: John Milton, Thomas Paine, and John Stuart Mill... they framed it in terms of freedom of hearing. By silencing someone, you limit potential audiences and their right to hear. In this original framing, the rights of these listeners are crucial, not just those of the speaker. Yes, Sturgeon's law applies. Most speech is crap. But let readers and listeners decide for themselves what they should read or hear. Don't give a government body that power. And honestly, is there any government body you would be willing to grant that power? The power of deciding what you could read or hear? Considering their typical level of competence, can you honestly say you'd be happy with your government being a filter for your senses? Would you be content letting them throw people in jail for nothing more than text typed on a keyboard? Maybe it's my American upbringing, but the concept seems absurd to me. Sticks and stones can break my bones, but... words can be a felony? What the hell? Edit: I'm not sure how, but many readers seem to have misconstrued my comment as condoning threats. That is not the case. Everyone here agrees that threats to one's well-being are criminal and wrong. The law we are discussing restricts the exchange of ideas, albeit potentially crudely-formed ones. Let's not attack straw men.
    - vacri 11y ago
      > Sticks and stones can break my bones, but... words can be a felony? I guess when people live in such fear from online bullying that they have to move house because of the rape and death threats they're receiving, it's a little more than "text typed on a keyboard". It's not your American upbringing, it's your framing of the problem.
      - chroma 11y ago
        It really should go without saying, but rape and death threats are crimes. Nobody is saying they aren't. New Zealand's new law isn't about criminalizing such (already illegal) threats. It's about making non-threats crimes. Under this law, half of the comments in this thread could be interpreted as illegal. Hell, I can't think of a comedian that couldn't be charged under this law. That's what I'm up-in-arms about.
  - Ntrails 11y ago
    I guess I've always wondered where the line is. To me saying "FYAD" seems like essentially harmless flames. Whereas saying "I'm going to rape/kill you" seems like a threat. I guess it's just related to how I "grew up" online? I don't consider being mean to people on the internet default worthy of any law or punishment. Telling someone "You're an idiot and I hope you die in a fire" is my internet given right, assuming the context of the comment is right (it's within the social norms for that board/forum/site/reddit/whatever). But this law makes no allowances for such things. Twitter is weird, because there are no norms, no mods, no masters. In essence that's a large part of the problem. No filters. No choice of engagement.
    - DanBC 11y ago
      > Telling someone "You're an idiot and I hope you die in a fire" is my internet given right, How far do you take that right though? Does the person you're trying to say it to have to hear you, or are they allowed to block you? Are you allowed to set up multiple accounts to evade the block? Are you allowed to take the message to AFK-world - sending letters through the mail or telephoning your insults? The Criado-Perez trolls who were jailed didn't just send a couple of messages. They bombarded Criado-Perez with hundreds of messages. > threats that [Sorley] had sent, including "just got out of prison and would happily do more time to see you buried” and “Rape?! I'd do a lot worse things than rape you!!" Here she talks about the type of messages she was getting. http://www.theguardian.com/lifeandstyle/2013/aug/04/caroline-criado-perez-twitter-rape-threats http://www.theguardian.com/lifeandstyle/2013/aug/04/caroline... Note that she says: > She is still getting violent threats, and two people have now been arrested. When she was campaigning, she was getting hostile messages, she says, but they were relatively benign. "Get back to the kitchen, shut up, fuck off. That was just people being unpleasant and not liking feminists. But it was nothing that would have led me to report them to the police." > Now, she is dealing with something altogether different. What kind of tweets has she received? "Gosh." She looks embarrassed. "So, for example, someone was talking about giving me a good smashing up the arse. Somebody said: 'All aboard the rape train.' Some guy tweeted another guy asking if he wanted to join in raping me." Then there were the death threats. "One was from a really bright guy who said: 'I've just got released from prison.'" She shows me her phone: "I'd do a lot worse than rape you. I've just got out of prison and would happily do more time to see you berried [sic]. #10feetunder." The tweet is signed Ayekayesa. There is another one, equally chilling. "I will find you, and you don't want to know what I will do when I do. You're pathetic. Kill yourself. Before I do. #Godie." I hope you can see there's a difference between someone saying "FOAD" and someone sending hundreds of death and rape threats per day from multiple different accounts.
- tim333 11y ago
  >This is a law that will never help a single person What makes you say that? There's a lot of nasty stuff like revenge porn that goes on and is hard to prosecute under existing laws. Why won't an act like this that bans it specifically help anyone?
  - deleted 11y ago
    [deleted]
  - cataphract 11y ago
    How is revenge porn worse than any of other morally questionable acts (to say the least) that we decided not to police in the sexual arena? Right now, if I defraud someone into having sex with me (e.g. by saying I'm some famous actor or that I'm not having sex with anyone else), the state will not intervene unless maybe there's some STD involved. If someone agrees to be filmed/photographed and leaves the material with the other person, I don't see why the state should intervene. This is especially so if the person doesn't attach any conditions at the time (though as I showed, we're even prepared not to enforce such conditions in other circumstances).
    - tim333 11y ago
      Well, with morally questionable acts in general there is a question of whether the law getting involved will make things better. For some stuff like say cheating on your girlfriend the answer is probably no, for murder probably yes. As to revenge porn I'd lead towards yes in many cases. It the case of 'isanyoneup' for example >Hunter Moore, 26, used to run a website called IsAnyoneUp.com, which he told "Nightline" he had launched as a place for "public humiliation." I have no problem with people like that getting prosecuted which he was in the end.
    - elemenopy 11y ago
      > if I defraud someone into having sex with me (e.g. by saying I'm some famous actor or that I'm not having sex with anyone else), the state will not intervene unless maybe there's some STD involved While I can't speak for the U.S., in New Zealand consent is vitiated by mistaken identity [1]. I suspect there is also common law precedent. > If someone agrees to be filmed/photographed and leaves the material with the other person, I don't see why the state should intervene. Firstly, because from a policy perspective, having an intimate recording publicly and permanently released without consent massively harms the victim to the extent they may be driven to suicide, and there is no reasonable case to be made that the perpetrator should have the right to release such a recording, considering their intention is to inflict pain and trauma upon their victim. Secondly, intimate recordings are implicitly provided in confidence. It is a social norm that if you receive a sext you do not immediately post it to Facebook. I see no problem in establishing this implicit confidential relationship in statute considering the outcomes of revenge porn. 1. Crimes Act s 128A(6) http://www.legislation.govt.nz/act/public/1961/0043/latest/DLM329057.html http://www.legislation.govt.nz/act/public/1961/0043/latest/D...
higherpurpose 11y ago
> Be indecent or obscene. Really? They're going to send people to prison for "being obscene" on the Internet?
- bcraven 11y ago
  I suspect that the obscenity has to be directly targeted at someone, in which case it would be considered abusive.
jshap70 11y ago
I really don't see this as being just another charge tacked onto the end after something terrible happens because of cyber bullying. The biggest issues with cyber bullying are with kids and teenagers, not trolls. I doubt kids have the foresight to care, and even then they're also (rightfully) treated differently by court systems, meaning that they know there are much lessened punishments even if it is brought up.
jordanthoms 11y ago
One of the few Members of Parliament opposed to this speaking against the bill: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-5XZ7OZCzBY https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-5XZ7OZCzBY "We must do something, this bill is indeed something, therefore we must pass this bill" There are already sufficient protections in common law against harmful speech and passing vague law that only applies to online speech just makes us look like idiots.
dspillett 11y ago
I don't think making it a specific crime is the way forward long term. As the article states, in most countries everything is already covered by existing legislation (and society's general view of common decency but that doesn't necessarily help in a court). The problem is one of implementation. How do you gather proof/evidence, how do you prove intent beyond reasonable doubt, and how do you support the victims during and after. A fair amount of the existing problem is similar to bullying in other area: the victims being scared to speak out either just through fear of the perpetrators or through the thought that nothing can and/or will be done. And other key problem is people in law enforcement (from the cops on the street all the way up to the judges and legislators) and people in society's support structures (parents, teachers, councillors, and so forth) not understanding: being out of touch with the technology, or facets of modern culture (cyber-bullying is a lot more common in the young and many who where young 20 or more years ago, and I'm including myself there, don't quite understand those people), or often both. Sometimes the more specific a crime the easier it is for a good legal team (or just a clever arsehole) to find loopholes that allow them to get away with things that are effectively the same thing but are not covered by the exact wording, so great care needs to be taken in drafting the law. Having said that: making it a specific crime might be a very useful stop-gap measure though. It at least tells both the victims and those on the other side that the situation is being taken seriously, brings the matter to sharper focus for the implementers/enforcers of the law so they'll see the need to fill the knowledge/experience gap, and to an extent brings the issue to increased public attention (hopefully with similar effect where needed).
- AdeptusAquinas 11y ago
  While existing legislation covers the same issues, I think a problem is the courts and general public treat the same crime in a different context (i.e. over the phone or out in the street) as more serious / real, which leaves the cyber-variant harder to deal with effectively or consistently. By explicitly singling it out with its own definition and punishments, this will no doubt it makes things easier for the police, courts and victims I think. Assuming it doesn't get abused by our idiot politicians anyway (I'm from NZ - looking at you Colin Craig).
grovulent 11y ago
So - according to the bill, anyone with a complaint has to send it to a delegated agency that will be responsible for assessing each complaint. It is there to screen for trivial cases, etc. If there is cause, they can then send it off to a court which will then determine what is to happen. The court can refer it back to the agency for more attempts at mediation etc... before making a ruling. These are all reasonable checks on balances from the point of view of ensuring that this is not abused to censor speech etc. The courts are even instructed to take account of the "intent" of the communicator. So it's not like the nutso feminist-left - with their "intent is not magic" belief - are driving this bill. So from this point of view the bill is actually quite reasonable... Of course, from another point of view - i.e. when you consider the sheer number of assholes on the internet, it remains completely insane. The stated intent of the bill is to provide timely redress to victims. Lol - when hell freezes over. My prediction - The delegated agency is going to be woefully under-funded. As far as I can see in the legislation - it is actually toothless. Any enforcement has to come from the courts. So people will learn to ignore the agency... feed-backing more cases onto the courts which see their time getting taken up because people can't get along on the internet. edit: the problem being that people WILL submit frivolous cases. Lots of them. Victims won't by-and-large get the timely redress promised - except for a couple of high profile cases that make it into the media. And this non-result will come at great expense. But thanks for being the test case NZ... nothing like empirical confirmation of any point of view.
- te_chris 11y ago
  'nutso feminist-left'. Nice one.
  - beedogs 11y ago
    Is there a better term for SJWs?
trengrj 11y ago
Background from an overseas New Zealander: New Zealand's centre right National party under John Key has made a lot of concerning moves regarding civil liberties, censorship, and the internet. A couple examples: Expanding the GCSB (NZ's NSA) to allow domestic spying http://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/news/article.cfm?c_id=1&objectid=11112152 http://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/news/article.cfm?c_id=1&objecti... Kim Dotcom's shakedown https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kim_Dotcom#Arrest_and_extradition_proceedings https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kim_Dotcom#Arrest_and_extradit... I view this bill as another attempt to control speech online with "cyber bullying" being just a useful phrase to push this sort of legislation through..
- jordanthoms 11y ago
  It's highly disingenuous to say that without also noting that this bill passed 116 to 5, and the most vocal critic came from the right side of the house. I oppose the bill as well, but we shouldn't pretend that National is solely at fault for it.
  - trengrj 11y ago
    Agreed but that is my point. National has diverged completely from its roots as a classical liberal party.
    - elemenopy 11y ago
      National has never really been a classical liberal party. Muldoon ran some of the most interventionist economic policy in NZ history, and Bolger and Shipley passed the Resource Management Act. In recent times only ACT has really been classically liberal, but even that is a bit shaky.
    - deleted 11y ago
      [deleted]
beedogs 11y ago
Wow. WOW. What a fucking terrible law, written for the Internet by people who have never actually used the Internet.
- deleted 11y ago
  [deleted]
polemic 11y ago
You can read the Act in full here: http://www.legislation.govt.nz/act/public/2015/0063/latest/whole.html#DLM5711810 http://www.legislation.govt.nz/act/public/2015/0063/latest/w...
HilaryNews 11y ago
Oh goodie, another opportunity to sow confusion into one if the few remaining libertarian bastions of the internet. I'll be sending my EQUALITY+SECURITY>FREEDOM zealots to downvote anyone who defend the unimagimable horrors of bullying under the guise of FREEZE PEACH LOL STUPID WHITE MALES. Freedom is literally worse than the Holocaust, Jon Stewart taught me that. Australia is literally the progressive apex of the multiverse for doing this. Literally.
- elemenopy 11y ago
  > Australia Please reread the title and apologise
  - HilaryNews 11y ago
    How dare you tell a Hilary supporter to apologize! That's sexist and abusive and bullying!
  - deleted 11y ago
    [deleted]
cxromos 11y ago
I've been bullied on the playground (not just by Xcode). Most of the physical bullying I've forgot. That sad there were some rally vicious assholes (later on probably ended up on a war crimes bench) that did psychological damage. What kids do to kids in these days is beyond belief. Younger sister having someone savvy in like most of the people here to give her advice not to take it seriously is not as common as we tend to bias here. Psychological bullying in gangs is worse than being beaten on the playground. Let's not get paranoid. This is New Zealand we speak about :) Do your homework.

45 points by anu_gupta 11y ago

x0054 11y ago

This is a law that will never help a single person, and eventually will be used and abused against people the state finds undesirable. Really sad to see freedom of speech being killed off yet again in an idiotic pursuit of an illusion of safety.

onion2k 11y ago
This is a law that will never help a single person, and eventually will be used and abused against people the state finds undesirable. Most countries having laws that limit freedom in favour of protecting people from abuse. They're used frequently, and they do work (at least to punish if not deter). A law being abused by the state is a problem though; hopefully the New Zealand government will word theirs to protect against that happening. Really sad to see freedom of speech being killed off yet again in an idiotic pursuit of an illusion of safety. Freedom of speech is not absolute. It never really has been. You've never been free (in the specific sense of 'free' meaning 'a right protected by law') to lie about other people, to be abuse other people, to be obscene, to threaten other people, to copy other people's speech. There's a long list of case law about people who want to be free to say things and have been denied that right - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_free_speech_exceptions https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_free_speech_exce... Saying, printing, or posting online things that are designed to abuse another individual is not, and should not be, protected speech.
- baddox 11y ago
  > You've never been free (in the specific sense of 'free' meaning 'a right protected by law') to lie about other people, to be abuse other people, to be obscene, to threaten other people, to copy other people's speech. Obscenity is the easiest one in that list to argue ought be legal.
  - AdeptusAquinas 11y ago
    Obscenity in this context likely means obscenity AT someone. I.e. sending unsolicited naked pictures or revenge porn etc..
    - x0054 11y ago
      Why can't that be covered under normal harassment laws? Why do we need an entire new law, with very broad and vague definitions, to cover something that's clearly already covered by already existing laws.
      - AdeptusAquinas 11y ago
        The definitions are actually very narrow and specific if you read the text. And I imagine a specific law is necessary to clarify things for the justice system, who otherwise might not be sure whether such things are prosecutable when they occur via some new app or service online.
      - vacri 11y ago
        Most such laws were written before the explosion of social media, which is less than two decades old in the public mainstream.
- mattdw 11y ago
  Unfortunately the law provides no exemptions for media, or against public figures, and truth is no defense. All that is required is that you caused harm and it is found that you intended to. So for example, exposing the corruption of a politician (online) may well be illegal under the act.
- chroma 11y ago
  In your examples, you readily equivocate civil and criminal law. The punishments and standards of evidence differ quite a bit. You also reference US cases that most free speech advocates (including the ACLU) disagree with. Reams could be written teasing out details, but I'll skip over that and get to the core of my disagreement. I really dislike framing in terms of "freedom of speech." Many of the first lions of free speech: John Milton, Thomas Paine, and John Stuart Mill... they framed it in terms of freedom of hearing. By silencing someone, you limit potential audiences and their right to hear. In this original framing, the rights of these listeners are crucial, not just those of the speaker. Yes, Sturgeon's law applies. Most speech is crap. But let readers and listeners decide for themselves what they should read or hear. Don't give a government body that power. And honestly, is there any government body you would be willing to grant that power? The power of deciding what you could read or hear? Considering their typical level of competence, can you honestly say you'd be happy with your government being a filter for your senses? Would you be content letting them throw people in jail for nothing more than text typed on a keyboard? Maybe it's my American upbringing, but the concept seems absurd to me. Sticks and stones can break my bones, but... words can be a felony? What the hell? Edit: I'm not sure how, but many readers seem to have misconstrued my comment as condoning threats. That is not the case. Everyone here agrees that threats to one's well-being are criminal and wrong. The law we are discussing restricts the exchange of ideas, albeit potentially crudely-formed ones. Let's not attack straw men.
  - vacri 11y ago
    > Sticks and stones can break my bones, but... words can be a felony? I guess when people live in such fear from online bullying that they have to move house because of the rape and death threats they're receiving, it's a little more than "text typed on a keyboard". It's not your American upbringing, it's your framing of the problem.
    - chroma 11y ago
      It really should go without saying, but rape and death threats are crimes. Nobody is saying they aren't. New Zealand's new law isn't about criminalizing such (already illegal) threats. It's about making non-threats crimes. Under this law, half of the comments in this thread could be interpreted as illegal. Hell, I can't think of a comedian that couldn't be charged under this law. That's what I'm up-in-arms about.
- Ntrails 11y ago
  I guess I've always wondered where the line is. To me saying "FYAD" seems like essentially harmless flames. Whereas saying "I'm going to rape/kill you" seems like a threat. I guess it's just related to how I "grew up" online? I don't consider being mean to people on the internet default worthy of any law or punishment. Telling someone "You're an idiot and I hope you die in a fire" is my internet given right, assuming the context of the comment is right (it's within the social norms for that board/forum/site/reddit/whatever). But this law makes no allowances for such things. Twitter is weird, because there are no norms, no mods, no masters. In essence that's a large part of the problem. No filters. No choice of engagement.
  - DanBC 11y ago
    > Telling someone "You're an idiot and I hope you die in a fire" is my internet given right, How far do you take that right though? Does the person you're trying to say it to have to hear you, or are they allowed to block you? Are you allowed to set up multiple accounts to evade the block? Are you allowed to take the message to AFK-world - sending letters through the mail or telephoning your insults? The Criado-Perez trolls who were jailed didn't just send a couple of messages. They bombarded Criado-Perez with hundreds of messages. > threats that [Sorley] had sent, including "just got out of prison and would happily do more time to see you buried” and “Rape?! I'd do a lot worse things than rape you!!" Here she talks about the type of messages she was getting. http://www.theguardian.com/lifeandstyle/2013/aug/04/caroline-criado-perez-twitter-rape-threats http://www.theguardian.com/lifeandstyle/2013/aug/04/caroline... Note that she says: > She is still getting violent threats, and two people have now been arrested. When she was campaigning, she was getting hostile messages, she says, but they were relatively benign. "Get back to the kitchen, shut up, fuck off. That was just people being unpleasant and not liking feminists. But it was nothing that would have led me to report them to the police." > Now, she is dealing with something altogether different. What kind of tweets has she received? "Gosh." She looks embarrassed. "So, for example, someone was talking about giving me a good smashing up the arse. Somebody said: 'All aboard the rape train.' Some guy tweeted another guy asking if he wanted to join in raping me." Then there were the death threats. "One was from a really bright guy who said: 'I've just got released from prison.'" She shows me her phone: "I'd do a lot worse than rape you. I've just got out of prison and would happily do more time to see you berried [sic]. #10feetunder." The tweet is signed Ayekayesa. There is another one, equally chilling. "I will find you, and you don't want to know what I will do when I do. You're pathetic. Kill yourself. Before I do. #Godie." I hope you can see there's a difference between someone saying "FOAD" and someone sending hundreds of death and rape threats per day from multiple different accounts.
tim333 11y ago
>This is a law that will never help a single person What makes you say that? There's a lot of nasty stuff like revenge porn that goes on and is hard to prosecute under existing laws. Why won't an act like this that bans it specifically help anyone?
- deleted 11y ago
  [deleted]
- cataphract 11y ago
  How is revenge porn worse than any of other morally questionable acts (to say the least) that we decided not to police in the sexual arena? Right now, if I defraud someone into having sex with me (e.g. by saying I'm some famous actor or that I'm not having sex with anyone else), the state will not intervene unless maybe there's some STD involved. If someone agrees to be filmed/photographed and leaves the material with the other person, I don't see why the state should intervene. This is especially so if the person doesn't attach any conditions at the time (though as I showed, we're even prepared not to enforce such conditions in other circumstances).
  - tim333 11y ago
    Well, with morally questionable acts in general there is a question of whether the law getting involved will make things better. For some stuff like say cheating on your girlfriend the answer is probably no, for murder probably yes. As to revenge porn I'd lead towards yes in many cases. It the case of 'isanyoneup' for example >Hunter Moore, 26, used to run a website called IsAnyoneUp.com, which he told "Nightline" he had launched as a place for "public humiliation." I have no problem with people like that getting prosecuted which he was in the end.
  - elemenopy 11y ago
    > if I defraud someone into having sex with me (e.g. by saying I'm some famous actor or that I'm not having sex with anyone else), the state will not intervene unless maybe there's some STD involved While I can't speak for the U.S., in New Zealand consent is vitiated by mistaken identity [1]. I suspect there is also common law precedent. > If someone agrees to be filmed/photographed and leaves the material with the other person, I don't see why the state should intervene. Firstly, because from a policy perspective, having an intimate recording publicly and permanently released without consent massively harms the victim to the extent they may be driven to suicide, and there is no reasonable case to be made that the perpetrator should have the right to release such a recording, considering their intention is to inflict pain and trauma upon their victim. Secondly, intimate recordings are implicitly provided in confidence. It is a social norm that if you receive a sext you do not immediately post it to Facebook. I see no problem in establishing this implicit confidential relationship in statute considering the outcomes of revenge porn. 1. Crimes Act s 128A(6) http://www.legislation.govt.nz/act/public/1961/0043/latest/DLM329057.html http://www.legislation.govt.nz/act/public/1961/0043/latest/D...

higherpurpose 11y ago

> Be indecent or obscene. Really? They're going to send people to prison for "being obscene" on the Internet?

bcraven 11y ago
I suspect that the obscenity has to be directly targeted at someone, in which case it would be considered abusive.

jshap70 11y ago

I really don't see this as being just another charge tacked onto the end after something terrible happens because of cyber bullying. The biggest issues with cyber bullying are with kids and teenagers, not trolls. I doubt kids have the foresight to care, and even then they're also (rightfully) treated differently by court systems, meaning that they know there are much lessened punishments even if it is brought up.

jordanthoms 11y ago

One of the few Members of Parliament opposed to this speaking against the bill: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-5XZ7OZCzBY https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-5XZ7OZCzBY "We must do something, this bill is indeed something, therefore we must pass this bill" There are already sufficient protections in common law against harmful speech and passing vague law that only applies to online speech just makes us look like idiots.

dspillett 11y ago

I don't think making it a specific crime is the way forward long term. As the article states, in most countries everything is already covered by existing legislation (and society's general view of common decency but that doesn't necessarily help in a court). The problem is one of implementation. How do you gather proof/evidence, how do you prove intent beyond reasonable doubt, and how do you support the victims during and after. A fair amount of the existing problem is similar to bullying in other area: the victims being scared to speak out either just through fear of the perpetrators or through the thought that nothing can and/or will be done. And other key problem is people in law enforcement (from the cops on the street all the way up to the judges and legislators) and people in society's support structures (parents, teachers, councillors, and so forth) not understanding: being out of touch with the technology, or facets of modern culture (cyber-bullying is a lot more common in the young and many who where young 20 or more years ago, and I'm including myself there, don't quite understand those people), or often both. Sometimes the more specific a crime the easier it is for a good legal team (or just a clever arsehole) to find loopholes that allow them to get away with things that are effectively the same thing but are not covered by the exact wording, so great care needs to be taken in drafting the law. Having said that: making it a specific crime might be a very useful stop-gap measure though. It at least tells both the victims and those on the other side that the situation is being taken seriously, brings the matter to sharper focus for the implementers/enforcers of the law so they'll see the need to fill the knowledge/experience gap, and to an extent brings the issue to increased public attention (hopefully with similar effect where needed).

AdeptusAquinas 11y ago
While existing legislation covers the same issues, I think a problem is the courts and general public treat the same crime in a different context (i.e. over the phone or out in the street) as more serious / real, which leaves the cyber-variant harder to deal with effectively or consistently. By explicitly singling it out with its own definition and punishments, this will no doubt it makes things easier for the police, courts and victims I think. Assuming it doesn't get abused by our idiot politicians anyway (I'm from NZ - looking at you Colin Craig).

grovulent 11y ago

So - according to the bill, anyone with a complaint has to send it to a delegated agency that will be responsible for assessing each complaint. It is there to screen for trivial cases, etc. If there is cause, they can then send it off to a court which will then determine what is to happen. The court can refer it back to the agency for more attempts at mediation etc... before making a ruling. These are all reasonable checks on balances from the point of view of ensuring that this is not abused to censor speech etc. The courts are even instructed to take account of the "intent" of the communicator. So it's not like the nutso feminist-left - with their "intent is not magic" belief - are driving this bill. So from this point of view the bill is actually quite reasonable... Of course, from another point of view - i.e. when you consider the sheer number of assholes on the internet, it remains completely insane. The stated intent of the bill is to provide timely redress to victims. Lol - when hell freezes over. My prediction - The delegated agency is going to be woefully under-funded. As far as I can see in the legislation - it is actually toothless. Any enforcement has to come from the courts. So people will learn to ignore the agency... feed-backing more cases onto the courts which see their time getting taken up because people can't get along on the internet. edit: the problem being that people WILL submit frivolous cases. Lots of them. Victims won't by-and-large get the timely redress promised - except for a couple of high profile cases that make it into the media. And this non-result will come at great expense. But thanks for being the test case NZ... nothing like empirical confirmation of any point of view.

te_chris 11y ago
'nutso feminist-left'. Nice one.
- beedogs 11y ago
  Is there a better term for SJWs?

trengrj 11y ago

Background from an overseas New Zealander: New Zealand's centre right National party under John Key has made a lot of concerning moves regarding civil liberties, censorship, and the internet. A couple examples: Expanding the GCSB (NZ's NSA) to allow domestic spying http://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/news/article.cfm?c_id=1&objectid=11112152 http://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/news/article.cfm?c_id=1&objecti... Kim Dotcom's shakedown https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kim_Dotcom#Arrest_and_extradition_proceedings https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kim_Dotcom#Arrest_and_extradit... I view this bill as another attempt to control speech online with "cyber bullying" being just a useful phrase to push this sort of legislation through..

jordanthoms 11y ago
It's highly disingenuous to say that without also noting that this bill passed 116 to 5, and the most vocal critic came from the right side of the house. I oppose the bill as well, but we shouldn't pretend that National is solely at fault for it.
- trengrj 11y ago
  Agreed but that is my point. National has diverged completely from its roots as a classical liberal party.
  - elemenopy 11y ago
    National has never really been a classical liberal party. Muldoon ran some of the most interventionist economic policy in NZ history, and Bolger and Shipley passed the Resource Management Act. In recent times only ACT has really been classically liberal, but even that is a bit shaky.
  - deleted 11y ago
    [deleted]

beedogs 11y ago

Wow. WOW. What a fucking terrible law, written for the Internet by people who have never actually used the Internet.

deleted 11y ago
[deleted]

polemic 11y ago

You can read the Act in full here: http://www.legislation.govt.nz/act/public/2015/0063/latest/whole.html#DLM5711810 http://www.legislation.govt.nz/act/public/2015/0063/latest/w...

HilaryNews 11y ago

Oh goodie, another opportunity to sow confusion into one if the few remaining libertarian bastions of the internet. I'll be sending my EQUALITY+SECURITY>FREEDOM zealots to downvote anyone who defend the unimagimable horrors of bullying under the guise of FREEZE PEACH LOL STUPID WHITE MALES. Freedom is literally worse than the Holocaust, Jon Stewart taught me that. Australia is literally the progressive apex of the multiverse for doing this. Literally.

elemenopy 11y ago
> Australia Please reread the title and apologise
- HilaryNews 11y ago
  How dare you tell a Hilary supporter to apologize! That's sexist and abusive and bullying!
- deleted 11y ago
  [deleted]

cxromos 11y ago

I've been bullied on the playground (not just by Xcode). Most of the physical bullying I've forgot. That sad there were some rally vicious assholes (later on probably ended up on a war crimes bench) that did psychological damage. What kids do to kids in these days is beyond belief. Younger sister having someone savvy in like most of the people here to give her advice not to take it seriously is not as common as we tend to bias here. Psychological bullying in gangs is worse than being beaten on the playground. Let's not get paranoid. This is New Zealand we speak about :) Do your homework.