Submission on new media and media regulation
March 12th, 2012 at 9:01 am by David FarrarSubmission close at the end of today to the Law Commission on their discussion paper, “The News Media meets ‘New Media’: Rights, Responsibilities and Regulation in the Digital Age“.
My submission is below. I encourage others with an interest in this area to do even a brief submission.
New Media Submission to Law Commission
Related posts:
- New media regulation
- Who are the news media
- What media standards should apply?
- Let’s not go down the Australian media regulation route
March 12th, 2012 at 9:12 am
Utter bullshit Mr. Farrar. You know this concern (really at the core of the whole issue) is only a Trojan Horse for the censorship and regulation the left are just itching to impose upon the net, and you should reject it utterly and completely.
Vote:March 12th, 2012 at 9:46 am
Regrettably I have to agree with ‘Redbaiter’ on this. The entire exercise of calling for submissions is just a smoke & mirrors ploy to introduce control over the one portion of the media that politicians currently can’t exert influence over. The new regulations may not come down on the internet like a tonne of bricks immediately but they will open the door to censorship.
Boil the waffle off the questions, discard the red herrings & the only stand out theme is the intention to shut down unwanted debate.
The law as it stands now is not totally toothless against gross abuse of the internet….more regulation will only benefit the one sector who don’t want to be held up for scrutiny, ie our political masters.
Vote:March 12th, 2012 at 12:54 pm
Absofuckinlutely. On the face of it all that should be required us compliance as per traditional media. Looks like another Trojan horse to limit free speech just like the Electoral Finance Act.
Vote:March 12th, 2012 at 1:50 pm
Redbaiter is right. It’s a Trojan horse.
cheers
David Prosser
Vote:March 12th, 2012 at 2:23 pm
I’m making it 5-out-of-5 here. With the MSM on the slab (or heading there one publications at a time), and polititians more deperate than ever to avoid transparency, the solition appears to be state control disguised as equitable regulation.
Vote:March 12th, 2012 at 2:57 pm
Questions 1,2,3,4 agree.
Q5 generally agree, but If you have priviledges – then you should be in the regultaed system – no ifs or buts.
Q6 – agree
Q7 – disagree. It doesnt make any difference. Talk-back radio and comments on -for example a news paper website – are contributions from various individuals – not the media who carry the message. If you took this to its exteme – then the Post Office is liable for anything it delivers that is against the law, or the ISP is liable for anything it distributes.
Q8 – youve got this wrong. The printed version was correct (as far as they knew) AT THE TIME OF PRINTING. You cant change that afterwards. They should be held to the same standard. In fact if the web version wasnt changed as more facts became available then they would be being unbalanced. You apply the same standard.
Q9 – you are asking for trouble here.
Q10 – no ifs or buts. If you have priviledge – you have to comply with the same standards.
Q11 – speech abuse is not worth worrying about. Whats abusive to me isnt abusive to others. How do you judge it? how does one cater for the ever increasing numbers of people who are just looking for a reason to be insulted. There are plenty of laws about slander and criminal activity eg: “I will kill you” – threatening to kill is covered under the criminal codes.
Q12 – agree. Anyone who thinks that the international communication system is going to take any notice of what someone in little ole NZ feels is dreaming. eg; Face book. Frankly that sort of social media is just about uncontrolable. Going onto facebook is like a white boy going out at night in west Chicago and shouting insults at the blacks. You know what will happen…….
Q13 – wrong. Trying to control speech on some of these sites is akin to the Soviets trying to brainwash the population. You cant do it. Its like trying to regulate racial thoughts – it cant be done. Generally it ends in a backalsh and general ignorance of any rules.
Q14 – we already have rules covering ‘criminal’ actions. When a news paper prints a comment that is of criminal action – there is no thought of them issuing a new edition – and recalling the old one. Why even think of doing so on the net. If its criminal – then its a criminal act. end of story.
I think where a lot of people get screwed up over the internet is that its but a faster more efficient way of distributing information. Yes thats a great help – but really its just another step in the progress of communication. You knw – we used to have to write letter in long hand and seal them with wax, then came gum and stamps, then came carbon paper (multiple copies) then came telex machine s- ‘Amazingly fast they were. A text message to the otherside of the world in minutes. Then faxes, then word processors (hundreds of ‘original’ copies), then the web – its just a faster version with wider circulation possible of all the previous steps – which in themselves were just improvements over previous steps.
Vote:Yes – we have to think differently about how to use it – but its irrelevnat as to wether you threatened to kill using a hand written note sealed with wax or sent an emial – they are bpth the same.