4 ms·

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

by 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...

by x0054 11y ago

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...