4 ms·

> 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 b

by 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.
- vacri 11y ago
  Well... actually you are arguing that they aren't crimes. You are arguing that governments should not be given the power to limit what you see or hear. Threats fall under that umbrella. You say 'let readers and listeners decide for themselves what they want to hear', but that is exactly the course of action of this legislation. It's not a proactive government censorship stopping any abuse from happening, but a post-facto avenue to pursue for readers and listeners who do feel abused. There is no 'right to hear' being removed here.
- AdeptusAquinas 11y ago
  That's very hyperbolic. The law is about threats and abuse - and is actually fairly specific as to what that entails. No one in this thread - or any comedian for that matter - is trying to incite a specific reader to take his or her life. If they were then boom - if this is in NZ there is now a law that will get you locked up.
  - chroma 11y ago
    > No one in this thread - or any comedian for that matter - is trying to incite a specific reader to take his or her life. "If you have something to say, here's what you do: You write it down on a piece of paper, you go out in the lobby, and then you go home and you kill yourself." — Louis C.K. [1] I and many others found Louis CK's performance hilarious, but what's stopping him from being locked up the next time he performs in New Zealand? It's only fame and prosecutorial discretion that stands between him and a prison sentence. 1. http://www.rollingstone.com/movies/news/how-louis-c-k-became-the-darkest-funniest-comedian-in-america-20111212 http://www.rollingstone.com/movies/news/how-louis-c-k-became...
    - AdeptusAquinas 11y ago
      What's stopping him from being locked up is that he is not attacking a specific individual, as the act clearly specifies he would need to for it to be a crime. He isn't pulling aside a member of his audience, then using email or social media in an attempt to get that person to kill themselves. That's what the law is there to prevent.
      - vacri 11y ago
        That and the fact that New Zealanders aren't fucking idiots. The law states 'reasonable person', not 'if the slightest offense is taken'. It's clearly part of an act, it's clearly not directed at anyone, and it's clearly not meant to be taken seriously.
        chroma 11y ago
        While I don't want to disparage all New Zealanders, I'm quite certain there are enough idiotic, overbearing, or corrupt officials that this law will be abused. And I'd like to stake money on this claim. I am willing to bet 1 bitcoin (≈265 USD), at even odds, that within a year we will see an article on the front page of HN showing abuses of the Harmful Digital Communications Bill. Specific abuses may include: corporate censorship, overreactions to jokes, or people jailed for offhand drunk-posting. There are a myriad of possibilities. If this happens, you pay me one bitcoin. If this does not happen, I pay you one bitcoin. If you're interested in this bet (or terms similar to it), let me know and I would be happy to discuss details. I should warn you: The history of these sorts of laws is pretty bad. For example, Malicious Communications Act[1] has been used in all kinds of ridiculous cases. People have been arrested for posting images as pedestrian as a burning poppy.[2] 1. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Malicious_Communications_Act_1988 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Malicious_Communications_Act_1... 2. http://www.theguardian.com/uk/2012/nov/12/kent-man-arrested-burning-poppy http://www.theguardian.com/uk/2012/nov/12/kent-man-arrested-...
x0054 11y ago
All of the examples you and many others in this thread are giving are already illegal, under currently existing laws, in most, if not all countries. Threatening people with violence, encouraging others to commit violence against other people, actually coming over and stalking people. All of those things are crimes already. There is no need to make another law that makes it illegal to do something that is already highly illegal.

by vacri 11y ago

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.

vacri 11y ago
Well... actually you are arguing that they aren't crimes. You are arguing that governments should not be given the power to limit what you see or hear. Threats fall under that umbrella. You say 'let readers and listeners decide for themselves what they want to hear', but that is exactly the course of action of this legislation. It's not a proactive government censorship stopping any abuse from happening, but a post-facto avenue to pursue for readers and listeners who do feel abused. There is no 'right to hear' being removed here.
AdeptusAquinas 11y ago
That's very hyperbolic. The law is about threats and abuse - and is actually fairly specific as to what that entails. No one in this thread - or any comedian for that matter - is trying to incite a specific reader to take his or her life. If they were then boom - if this is in NZ there is now a law that will get you locked up.
- chroma 11y ago
  > No one in this thread - or any comedian for that matter - is trying to incite a specific reader to take his or her life. "If you have something to say, here's what you do: You write it down on a piece of paper, you go out in the lobby, and then you go home and you kill yourself." — Louis C.K. [1] I and many others found Louis CK's performance hilarious, but what's stopping him from being locked up the next time he performs in New Zealand? It's only fame and prosecutorial discretion that stands between him and a prison sentence. 1. http://www.rollingstone.com/movies/news/how-louis-c-k-became-the-darkest-funniest-comedian-in-america-20111212 http://www.rollingstone.com/movies/news/how-louis-c-k-became...
  - AdeptusAquinas 11y ago
    What's stopping him from being locked up is that he is not attacking a specific individual, as the act clearly specifies he would need to for it to be a crime. He isn't pulling aside a member of his audience, then using email or social media in an attempt to get that person to kill themselves. That's what the law is there to prevent.
    - vacri 11y ago
      That and the fact that New Zealanders aren't fucking idiots. The law states 'reasonable person', not 'if the slightest offense is taken'. It's clearly part of an act, it's clearly not directed at anyone, and it's clearly not meant to be taken seriously.
      - chroma 11y ago
        While I don't want to disparage all New Zealanders, I'm quite certain there are enough idiotic, overbearing, or corrupt officials that this law will be abused. And I'd like to stake money on this claim. I am willing to bet 1 bitcoin (≈265 USD), at even odds, that within a year we will see an article on the front page of HN showing abuses of the Harmful Digital Communications Bill. Specific abuses may include: corporate censorship, overreactions to jokes, or people jailed for offhand drunk-posting. There are a myriad of possibilities. If this happens, you pay me one bitcoin. If this does not happen, I pay you one bitcoin. If you're interested in this bet (or terms similar to it), let me know and I would be happy to discuss details. I should warn you: The history of these sorts of laws is pretty bad. For example, Malicious Communications Act[1] has been used in all kinds of ridiculous cases. People have been arrested for posting images as pedestrian as a burning poppy.[2] 1. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Malicious_Communications_Act_1988 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Malicious_Communications_Act_1... 2. http://www.theguardian.com/uk/2012/nov/12/kent-man-arrested-burning-poppy http://www.theguardian.com/uk/2012/nov/12/kent-man-arrested-...

x0054 11y ago

All of the examples you and many others in this thread are giving are already illegal, under currently existing laws, in most, if not all countries. Threatening people with violence, encouraging others to commit violence against other people, actually coming over and stalking people. All of those things are crimes already. There is no need to make another law that makes it illegal to do something that is already highly illegal.