A Communications Tribunal for the Internet?

August 15th, 2012 at 6:00 am by David Farrar

The has published Harmful Digital Communications: The adequacy of the current sanctions and remedies.

This proposal will be considered by the Government and in some form a law change is highly likely. There are significant issues for Internet users. I recommend peopel read through the paper. Their recommendations:

  • The creation of a new criminal offence tailored for digital communication.
  • Amendments to the Harassment Act 1997, the Human Rights Act 1993, the Privacy Act 1993 and the Crimes Act 1961 to ensure that the provisions of these Acts can be readily applied to digital communications.
  • The establishment of a Communications Tribunal to provide citizens harmed by digital communications with speedy, efficient and cheap access to remedies such as takedown orders and “cease and desist” notices.
  • New legal requirements for all New Zealand schools to help combat bullying of all kinds, including cyber-bullying.

From their report:

This report is primarily about the laws to which we are all accountable when we communicate. Its recommendations are not aimed at censorship. Nor are they about criminalising speech which offends people simply because it may be abusive, nasty, vulgar, untrue or inflammatory.

That is good. However I do have some fears about how this boundary may get shifted over time.

Types of digital communications covered by the offence would include comments on websites, message boards and blogs, and in the social media (e.g. Facebook and Twitter), and also emails and texts.

Hence, why people should read the report.

Under our proposed amendments it would be an offence to publish intimate photographs or recordings of another person without their consent. We also recommend that the laws about online sexual grooming be tightened.

I support that.

We recommend that it become an offence to incite a person to commit suicide, irrespective of whether or not the person does so.

Likewise.

The Tribunal we propose would comprise a District Court judge supported (where necessary) by an expert internet adviser. There would be a number of judges designated to act.

If there is to be a Tribunal (and I have some reservations), I’m glad it will comprise a Judge, as they will be acquainted with the balancing if rights more than a lay commissioner might be.

The Tribunal’s jurisdiction would be protective, rather than punitive or compensatory. It would not have any powers to impose criminal sanctions. It would be limited instead to providing civil remedies, such as takedowns and cease and desist orders. In some cases it might also require apologies, right of reply, corrections or retractions. We do not propose that it have any power to award monetary compensation.

That sounds good, but what is implicit, not explicit, that a failure to comply would be contempt of court and see someone fined or jailed for non compliance eventually. I have reservations about someone being forced to take down material they stand by and are prepared to face legal consequences of.

The Tribunal would be a solution of last resort and the threshold for obtaining a remedy would be high. Complainants would have to demonstrate that the communication complained about had caused significant harm, including distress, humiliation or mental harm.

Distress can be rather subjective.

Among the other factors the Tribunal would have to take into account would be: the nature and purpose of the communication and whether it was the type of speech requiring high protection, such as political speech; the truth or falsity of the statement; the context in which it was expressed; and the conduct of the complainant – including the extent to which that conduct may have contributed to the harm suffered.

I am glad to see this, as one concern I have is political activists trying to use the Tribunal to silence critics.

We recommend that NetSafe be given statutory recognition as an “approved agency” responsible for triaging and, where possible, mediating complaints before they reach the Tribunal.

I support this. Netsafe do an excellent job, Mediation is preferable to arbitration.

 

 

Tags:

77 Responses to “A Communications Tribunal for the Internet?”

  1. thedavincimode (6,531 comments) says:

    All well and good but surely it wouldn’t result in the phrase: “homo knuckle-dragging marxist leftist scum” disappearing from lexicon of NZ’s foremost political and social fuckwit. That would be too much.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  2. nasska (10,650 comments) says:

    He’s off the hook Davinci…..

    …”Nor are they about criminalising speech which offends people simply because it may be abusive, nasty, vulgar, untrue or inflammatory.”…..

    Obviously the Commission agreed that to ban such abuse would disenfranchise Russell & render him incommunicado.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  3. Redbaiter (7,605 comments) says:

    Just more evil in the guise of public good.

    Amazing how these utterly disgusting and completely subjective conclusions get traction in a supposedly civilized country.

    Merely another example of how our culture is being utterly degraded because of the dominance of the left.

    Disgraceful too that a blogger who professes some reverence for freedom of expression would express support for this kind of twisted Stalinist attack upon that fragile concept.

    edit- not surprising to see the usual one cell amoebas and leftist enablers cheering for it.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  4. alloytoo (432 comments) says:

    One wonders how long before the religious beatniks start laying claims of blasphemy before the Tribunal

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  5. KiwiGreg (3,171 comments) says:

    “» The creation of a new criminal offence tailored for digital communication.”

    Yay. New Zealand’s big problem is not enough laws.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  6. Redbaiter (7,605 comments) says:

    Could you ever wish for a more stark example of the destructive outcomes of New Zealand’s current sick and mass obsession with the evil of big government?

    Promises to protect freedom of speech from the pack of arseholes and academic scum who will sit on this tribunal are deliberately deceptive and completely worthless.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  7. barry (1,317 comments) says:

    I think we need this sort of legislation like we all need another hole in the head.

    Firstly – there are plenty of laws to handle all this stuff now, and secondly it leays fully open the development of all sorts of claims about what causes offence.

    Its hate speech laws by the back door.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  8. tristanb (1,133 comments) says:

    Great, we don’t have nearly enough rules and regulations. Wouldn’t it be great if the government had entire control over what we did on our own computers?

    Fuck off Tribunal. Seriously, are our pockets so overfull that we want to waste more money on another bureaucracy. The internet will handle itself – if you get hurt feelings, then go to your room and cry, don’t complain to a TRIBUNAL.

    And NetSafe has said some pretty stupid stuff. They’re a bunch of teachers. Don’t they recommend people to have 16 character passwords or something similarly ridiculous?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  9. alex Masterley (1,490 comments) says:

    Barry @ 8.07.
    I agree.
    I can’t see the point in yet another unwanted micro tribunal.
    It will mean another website, silly unreadable forms, silly unreadable rules pompousity, cost, more beauracracy rights of appeal and general time wasting while waiting for people to present their cases, provide evidence etc etc and then wait for a decision that no-one will read.
    If you want to have a laugh have a look at the MOJ website which lists the various statutory tribunals that exist in this country. They are legion. Why do we need another?
    We should do as the Australians do and have one specialist tribunal that deals with all the areas covered by our various tribunals.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  10. Redbaiter (7,605 comments) says:

    Can you imagine the glee of some of the tyrannical leftist scum out there at the thought they may have the chance to sit on this tribunal?

    What the fuck is wrong with you Farrar?

    There is only one position for anyone who values freedom of expression to take on this issue and it is complete and total opposition.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  11. adamsmith1922 (888 comments) says:

    I am extremely uneasy about this proposal. It may seem modest on the surface, but has the potential to be a Trojan horse with massive adverse consequences

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  12. Falafulu Fisi (2,176 comments) says:

    DPF said…
    However I do have some fears about how this boundary may get shifted over time

    Welcome to the reality of being progressives. The hurdle for its proponents is always, to try to get a foot in the door. What’s next? It will be shifted over time to add more and more regulations because it is seen as easy since the first barrier has been overcome.

    Look at the smoking/tobacco laws as an example. First they banned it in private properties (restaurants/bars). Now since that barrier of pushing such nanny laws has been accepted in the psyche of the public, then they go for banning it in public places (bus stops, public parks, the entire CBD district & its roads). Actually, this has been proposed by the Auckland council. If that succeeds, then they will go for banning it in private homes (believe me, this will happen). Once that’s done, then they will go for complete prohibition.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  13. MT_Tinman (2,986 comments) says:

    Like the majority of commenters so far I’m ag’in it!

    Censorship by wimps, for wimps.

    The beauty of the internet as it is is that bedwetter can say what it wants and I can ignore it or not.

    Everyone has that choice.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  14. Redbaiter (7,605 comments) says:

    “I am extremely uneasy about this proposal.”

    That will worry the heck out of those Stalinist scum promoting it.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  15. Pete George (22,798 comments) says:

    A tribunal would be a good way to stop people like Redbaiter saying awful things on the internet…

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  16. Ed Snack (1,737 comments) says:

    Hey, Redbaiter has a point at last !

    This is a particularly inane and foolish attempt by the nanny state proponents to start the process of controlling speech on the internet. Anyone, and I repeat anyone, who thinks that this won’t be extended to control the ability to speak against the entrenched powers of government, bureaucracy, and race-based entitlement, needs to get out into the real world for a change. Any attempts to impinge on the freedom of speech need to be attacked at the outset, or we’ll finish up with censorship by stealth, like it or not.

    The law commission can collectively up and die, and that statement would no doubt be criminalized by their rules against “inciting someone to commit suicide, whether successful or not…”

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  17. kowtow (7,612 comments) says:

    Just what we needed.

    Another law to deal,not with criminal behaviour,we already have plenty of those,but with essentially rude behaviour.

    More sticky plasters for a rapidly degenerating social order.

    A bit like the driving and telephones,that’s careless driving(and stupid and selfish) but we got yet another piece of legislation we didn’t need.

    It’s interesting how in this context dvm,nasska(first off the mark), can’t discuss the issue at hand but use it to ad hom? It’s folk like that that get big government involved in our lives while pretending to abhor it. PG excepted, he’ll say anything to prove he’s a “political commentator”. PG seems to support more Big Brother.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  18. Pete George (22,798 comments) says:

    Putting the redbaiterbaiting aside, there is a good case to be made for some jurisdiction on internet speech. I’ve seen some very nasty personal attacks online using lies, defamation and mob rule against public figures.

    Free speech is all very well, but there should be an equally strong case for freedom from harrassment and damaging attacks, especially by anonymous people.

    Freedom of speech only works if it’s an even playing field, and the internet currently provides too much protection and capability to cowards.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  19. Falafulu Fisi (2,176 comments) says:

    Kowtow…
    PG excepted, he’ll say anything to prove he’s a “political commentator”. PG seems to support more Big Brother.

    Amen to that! I don’t know why Pete George doesn’t get along with LPrent (including commentators at the Standards)? They all believe in the same political philosophy and that is big government. I suggest that PG & LPrent should rent a room together and sort out their differences, because to their surprise, they would find out that they actually in the same leftist camp.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  20. Pete George (22,798 comments) says:

    kowtow and Falafulu Fisi – don’t be dicks.

    We have a police force for a good reason. We have armed services for a good reason. No one (sane) suggest we should abolish them and have no laws.

    A sensible society aims at getting the best balance of freedoms and controls. The Internet can be a bit of a wild west at times, bringing it into line with the modern ‘free’ world makes sense.

    Anarchists want no laws. Crazies online want no restrictions to their cowardice. Too bad if they get called on their bullshit and have to comply with a bit of legalised decency.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  21. nasska (10,650 comments) says:

    kowtow

    How hurtful! My first thought was to check that the resident Tourettes sufferer wouldn’t have his indiscriminate abuse reined in by the legislation yet you interpret my concern as an example of “ad hom”.

    Apart from that I view the setting up of a “Communications Tribunal” as totally unnecessary & a likely way to usher in censorship through the back door.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  22. Pete George (22,798 comments) says:

    And Falafulu Fisi, you obviously have no understanding of the vast differences between lprent and I. Stick to teaching kids, you seem to actually know something about that.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  23. Falafulu Fisi (2,176 comments) says:

    PG said…
    We have a police force for a good reason. We have armed services for a good reason. No one (sane) suggest we should abolish them and have no laws.

    PG, what is the primary role of the government? I mean, what is the moral justification for the existence of the government in the first place? If you know the answer, then you wouldn’t have said what you stated above in your previous comment. If you don’t know the answer, then my previous comment about you is exactly correct.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  24. kowtow (7,612 comments) says:

    PetG

    You’re the dick mate. Complaining about cyber behaviour!

    You go to the Cretindard and post stuff there,get your arse kicked and then come crying back to kb to tell us what a cyber warrior you are and how nasty they are.WTF! Now you want laws to stop people from being silly.

    You’re like a kid that pokes a stick in a wasps nest and then cries to mummy about getting stung .Boo who who.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  25. RRM (9,441 comments) says:

    This society’s really gone downhill ever since they made it illegal to bash people you don’t like.

    “Assault” charges I think they call them.

    Seems like the damn progressive socialists want to control everything we do these days. Bloody Political Correctness gone mad.

    And now you can’t even punch a bag at the gym without the police turning up. Talk about big brother alright! It’s the start of a slippery slope for sure.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  26. Pete George (22,798 comments) says:

    I didn’t bring The Standard into this discussion, I don’t think it’s very relevant to this. Sure there are a bunch of abusive resident trolls there but I was playing games there (and trying to genuinely contribute to discussion) with known risks.

    I’ve seen much worse on Facebook, where people are viciously attacked in their own social circles, on their own pages. One incident was bad enough to prompt me into talking to police about it. They knew one of the people involved – they had also abused poice (and their local mayor) – but couldn’t do anything about it.

    That is very different to letting lprent and his mugging mob display their nastiness and frustration in their own forum.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  27. nasska (10,650 comments) says:

    RRM

    …”Seems like the damn progressive socialists want to control everything we do these days. Bloody Political Correctness gone mad.”….

    Didn’t anyone tell you that Helen’s little warriors don’t do irony well? Try as you might, you’ll never get sarcasm to stand out against the batshit mad utterings of your comrades.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  28. nasska (10,650 comments) says:

    Pete George

    How do you think the proposed legislation enabling a Communications Tribunal will differentiate between personal abuse & political discussion? Both now as envisaged (1) & (2) after a change of government when the types who run the Standard are pulling the levers of power.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  29. backster (2,076 comments) says:

    Another useless, costly, unnecessary, bludging bureaucratic tribunal. If there is a problem it can be resolved by a small subclause to either the Crimes or Summary Offences Act. The problem would only then be ongoing if Judges lacked the sense and fortitude to punish perpetrators realistically.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  30. mara (723 comments) says:

    How can TRUE freedom of expression co-exist with freedom from harrassment? I’m reminded of the saying “If it don’t fit, don’t force it.” This proposed legislation is force. And we don’t need more govt. control, but less.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  31. Redbaiter (7,605 comments) says:

    Protectors of freedom- Can’t you just imagine how gleeful such statist scum as Peter George (and others of the same ilk writing here in defence of this disgusting proposal) would be sitting on this tribunal and silencing and handing out fines and jail sentences to their political opponents?

    That is just the kind of indecent Stalinist action this stinking Soviet style legislation would lead to.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  32. Pete George (22,798 comments) says:

    nasska – I haven’t had a close look at this, but it’s very difficult in practice.

    If you look at The Standard as an example, they regularly have posts based on blatant lies, they have a core of commenters who harrass, attack and abuse, and they are aided by the moderators. But they are currently moaning about a lack of potency within Labour and don’t seem to realise that it’s due to their well established lack of credibility.

    I balanced the almost certainty of being attacked there with the hope that reasonable readers would seem them for what they were. So generally in the political sphere it should sort itself out. But there were some fairly vicious and sustained personal attacks supported by the blog moderators, who only ever banned me, never reprimanding the cowards.

    The whole thing is very difficult to deal with. The speed of communication over the internet can mean that damage can be done long before anything can be policed.

    The bad Facebook case I’ve referred to involved attempts to sabotage the finances and support of an anti child abuse organisation, which was ironic. Some of the attacks came from people involved in ‘rival’ anti child abuse groups.

    But there are also significant dangers for businesses using forums like Facebook. Brands and reputations can potentially be severely damaged before anything can be done to address the problems.

    I wonder what the pro-’freedom’ proponents here would think of an unrestricted free-for-all in business? Is abotage by anonymous people on Facebook fair game?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  33. Pete George (22,798 comments) says:

    Redbaiter – nothing I’ve suggested has come close to being as bad as you promoting the hanging from lamp posts of journalists and politicians you disagree with (which is all of them). And promoting civil war and armed uprisings.

    You are more Stalin-like than anyone else I’ve seen commenting here.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  34. nasska (10,650 comments) says:

    Peter George

    With respect, you should have seen the inevitability of personal attacks once you set foot on socialist territory….it’s all they know & therefore all they do. Cut your losses but don’t let their abuse blind you to the Trojan horse that the Tribunal will be.

    Businesses & indeed individual people even now have the protection of Court orders & tort law to protect themselves from unscrupulous & vindictive attacks…..the new proposal merely adds another layer of bureaucratic control which can easily be manipulated by those holding political power.

    It is being sold as a salve to internet bullying & abuse….it’s real purpose is to control the freedom of the internet.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  35. tristanb (1,133 comments) says:

    What would the Communications Tribunal say about most of these posts?
    http://www.kiwiblog.co.nz/tag/gingas

    They’re offensive to some. They’d undertake “civil remediation” and perhaps “take down” and “cease and desist” you.

    I even strongly disagree with it being illegal to tell someone to kill themselves. If there was a serious and planned attempt at getting someone to commit suicide, and then they actually do, then okay that should be illegal.

    But if someone gets frustrated with an internet troll, (e.g. completely fictional stoner with a criminal past) and tells him to “learn to tie a noose in the garage”, or even “you’re a worthless piece of shit who’d be better off dead”, that’s an incredibly rude, nasty and malicious comment – but it shouldn’t be illegal.

    If someone said that to me, I wouldn’t be harmed. I wouldn’t kill myself. I’d think it was a bit rough, if I was a sensitive soul I’d be a bit hurt. But unless someone’s on the brink then it’s not the cause of their death, or injury. And if they’re on the brink, then the comment would only be the last straw and it’s unfair that some internet commenter could be made culpable.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  36. Pete George (22,798 comments) says:

    nasska: Businesses & indeed individual people even now have the protection of Court orders & tort law to protect themselves from unscrupulous & vindictive attacks…..

    With the speed, power and anonymity of the Internet that can be too little, far too late. I’m well aware of the possibility “to control the freedom of the internet”. But individuals, groups and businesses also should be free to speak and promote their causes and products free of maliciousness.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  37. KiwiGreg (3,171 comments) says:

    It’s a drop in the bucket but the Law Commission should be abolished.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  38. nasska (10,650 comments) says:

    Pete George

    Your argument is largely invalid unless you include a deterrent effect resulting from the legislation. Neither the speed nor the power of the internet will be compromised any more by a Tribunal than by existing remedies. Any dispensing of gag orders or penalties will, as now, be so far down the track as to be worthless. I concede that blowing away guaranteed anonymity may have a sobering influence on someone’s bile but this needs to be balanced against the right not to be hunted down for political beliefs.

    It would take more than a few instances of unjustified abuse to convince me that the cure isn’t vastly worse than the complaint.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  39. Pete George (22,798 comments) says:

    tristanb: But unless someone’s on the brink then it’s not the cause of their death, or injury. And if they’re on the brink, then the comment would only be the last straw and it’s unfair that some internet commenter could be made culpable.

    So it’s fine to bully and harrass anyone who is already depressed because anything they might do won’t be your fault?

    I think it’s unfair that any internet commenter should try and wash their hands of any culpability if involved in any straw let alone the last straw.

    This reminds my of a manslaughter case in court yesterday “It’s not our fault he can’t take a punch”.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  40. Falafulu Fisi (2,176 comments) says:

    PG said…
    So it’s fine to bully and harrass anyone

    Pete, you don’t get it do you? If I abuse you on your own website (http://yournz.org/) then you should shut or block me out. Easy. If someone at the Standard abused you there, then fucking don’t go there. Easy. If you’re part of someone’s network on Facebook and another person in that network abused you, then cut that network off from yours. Easy. What you insist is that others should not hurl abusive language at you even they (those abusers) own that territory? Example The Standards. If someone on the internet is being harassed/abused, then it is the fault of that person for keep going there.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  41. insider (1,000 comments) says:

    Jacqui Sperling and Madelaine Flanagan had an interesting case recently over an internet catfight. the judge made some intersting comemtns about what was and wasn’t harassment and what people brought on themselves. I’m surprised DPF hasn’t mentioned it as he is usually pretty hooked in to internet law rulings. More here http://www.thepaepae.com/implications-of-recent-internet-gagging-attempt/24396/

    I wonder if there is going to be a tribunal to manage kids poking their tongue out at me from the school bus?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  42. tristanb (1,133 comments) says:

    So it’s fine to bully and harrass anyone who is already depressed because anything they might do won’t be your fault?

    No it’s not fine. But being an arsehole shouldn’t be illegal. (And I understand that actively harassing and bullying someone is already illegal.)

    It’s not fine to cheat on your wife – but it’s not illegal.
    It’s not fine to push in line at the supermarket – but it’s not illegal.

    They’re just words. Unlike a punch, they can’t kill you.
    People do all sorts of cruel things to each other, all sort of horrible things cause sadness in this world. Being slagged off on the internet is way down the bottom of the list. No-one has actually been hurt by being called a “hopeless brainless gape jawed drooling dumbfuck”.

    The most annoying thing about these laws, is that I could go out, get drunk, drink drive – and if I accidentally hit and paralysed a kid, I’d barely be punished. I could break into and burgle an office and, if I was caught and convicted, then I’d be out before Christmas.

    But here the National government is trying to make up more laws about petty crap on the internet, which sadly idiots like Melissa Lee are regarded to be experts.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  43. nonpartisan (41 comments) says:

    We recommend that it become an offence to incite a person to commit suicide, irrespective of whether or not the person does so.

    So if I tell someone to take a long walk off a short pier, or take a slow walk through fast traffic, I would be committing an offence? Complete madness. This neverending push to regulate more and more of our lives is steadily pushing me to the right.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  44. Chthoniid (2,027 comments) says:

    I think there is a clear difference between an internet troll, flame-war & a criminal cybertalking behaviour. The problem as it stands is that the Crimes Act is very difficult to apply in such cases. This shouldn’t be a surprise because the Crimes Act didn’t anticipate what the internet could bring.

    Having dealt with a genuine cyberstalking case for over 2 years and the NZ police, I’m well aware the law provides little recourse for victims of cyberstalking. I don’t give a rats arse about a flame-war on the web, or a troll. A real cyberstalker is a much nastier.

    At one level there is there sheer volume of abuse.
    Here’s what a mere 48 hrs of emails look like from a cyberstalker:
    http://sciblogs.co.nz/chthonic-wildlife-ramblings/2011/09/28/then-theres-the-email/

    Multiply that for every day of every week of every month for a couple of years- & don’t think there’s going to be a break with Xmas or the like.

    The second level is that the threats are actually fairly serious in nature. And finally the harms it causes are also very easy to distinguish from ‘mere’ trolling or flame-wars. It fucks you up in horrible, horrible ways.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  45. kowtow (7,612 comments) says:

    chtnit

    Your problem is clearly a nutter. The asylums were emptied years ago by an unholy alliance of the left (don’t like institutions) and the right(don’t like paying for institutions).
    Meanwhile everyone suffers,especially the nutters themselves and the rest of society that comes in contact with them.

    You say she’s Canadian,get her to go to Toronto,the cops there seem to have the anwer.

    http://www.thestar.com/news/gta/article/1241895–coroner-calls-single-inquest-into-3-police-shootings-of-mentally-ill-people

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  46. Manolo (13,357 comments) says:

    100% against it!

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  47. Pete George (22,798 comments) says:

    Falafulu Fisi, you don’t get it do you?

    I’m not complaining about abuse on The Standard (or Kiwiblog), I repeat, I didn’t bring that into this topic.

    If someone on the internet is being harassed/abused, then it is the fault of that person for keep going there.

    Where? On the Internet? No email? No cellphone? Cyber stalkers come to you, you don’t go to them. Shut down all your web presence? If you’re an organisation or business what do you do, stop advertising and go in to hiding?

    What should an MP do? Cut themselves off from any public contact?

    If someone on the street is being harassed/abused, then it is the fault of that person for keep going there.

    Thugs should have the ‘freedom’ to rule wherever they like?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  48. Falafulu Fisi (2,176 comments) says:

    PG…
    Where? On the Internet? No email? No cellphone? Cyber stalkers come to you, you don’t go to them. Shut down all your web presence? If you’re an organisation or business what do you do, stop advertising and go in to hiding?

    Can you give an example here Pete? Where and when such bully occured? I suspect that you will bring up an example that’s already been covered by present legislation. Go on Pete, mention one case.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  49. Pete George (22,798 comments) says:

    Falafulu Fisi – see Chthoniid at 1:45 pm.

    And see: Confronting the real abuse
    - that links to a blog/blogger who I suggest you avoid.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  50. Pete George (22,798 comments) says:

    And Falafulu Fisi – someone I know was accused of being responsible for their child’s death. Voxy removed that comment when requested but it was also mention in harrassment elsewhere.

    I was likened to a child molester on an Occupy FB page, I visited the Occupy site and the culprit didn’t have the guts to front up but it was dealt with by organisers.

    Anonymous people do all sorts of crap online because they know that at worst they may have their comments removed, but they often just keep repeating elsewhere.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  51. Falafulu Fisi (2,176 comments) says:

    Pete George, I asked you to give an example and you didn’t give one.

    There are certain people (relatives, friends & acquaintances of mine) that I filter any email message from them. It means that some of those emails that are in my filtered list are deleted straight away. There is one relative of mine from the Island that I have set my filter to delete any email that comes from him. He doesn’t email to talk about anything useful except to ask for money all the time. Now, I don’t have to read his email anymore. There is one friend that I have set my filter to delete any email messages/texts that come from her. Reason? All her messages are inane. Nothing of value to read about her messages. My other friends have also set their filter to delete any messages from her. She even texts to say that she went to a public toilet on her way to Whangarei.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  52. thedavincimode (6,531 comments) says:

    lol Fala. Tuff love as it should be. :)

    Hint: you can’t choose your relatives, but you can choose your friends.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  53. Pete George (22,798 comments) says:

    Falafulu Fisi – you’re right, I didn’t give you one, I gave you four. Did you actually read Chthoniid’s comment?

    You do realise that there’s ways of communicating and abusing other than email? Emails are easy to deal with, I can block them too.

    “You’re a terrible maths teacher”. What if that was posted all over FB and txted to family and friends of someone a person gave maths lessons to? Now that would be very mild in comparison to what some cyberstalkers do. They’re are not just pesky relations, they can be serious and very determined at harrassing and inflicting damage. But in your world they should be free to do what they like.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  54. thedavincimode (6,531 comments) says:

    At first glance and without being able to summon the energy to take any interest in it presently it does seem rather vague and stupid.

    For example, when Colin Craig’s new bitch calls another anonymous blogger a “homo knuckle-dragging leftist scum”, assuming this meets whatever namby pamby threshold is imposed, HTF is that bullying? That’s quite different for example, to a teenager getting bullying texts from someone. Also though, in each case there is a solution; don’t use social media and change the cell phone number.

    And is it proposed that there is to be some different standard applied relative to a physical encounter or confrontation? The sort of thing that turned Russell into the funny little thing that he is with his infantile delusions about going down in a hail of hot lead? Physical bullying, and mental bullying in person that can’t be avoided is one thing, and has clearly had an effect in his case, but really this seems a very large step too far.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  55. Chthoniid (2,027 comments) says:

    For example, when Colin Craig’s new bitch calls another anonymous blogger a “homo knuckle-dragging leftist scum”, assuming this meets whatever namby pamby threshold is imposed, HTF is that bullying?

    I would hope that the threshold for legal action is set higher than this. Currently the evidentiary standards under the NZ Crimes Act (Threaten Persons, Criminal Harassment) requires more than just name calling. It is actually more difficult to get genuine cyberstalking taken seriously when it is diluted by people invoking frivolous complaints.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  56. nasska (10,650 comments) says:

    thedavincimode

    What form do you think that this bullying took? It must have been traumatic to have had such an effect…..being ginga or crosseyed, even supposing that his mother dressed him funny….none of these could have produced such a cocked up outlook on life. Now with the proposed legislation the one thread that he uses to connect with reality may be withdrawn.

    We must keep searching the garbage for the clues that will help the doctors put his psyche back together.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  57. Chthoniid (2,027 comments) says:

    As an addendum, whilst not wishing to compose a manual on how to cyberstalk someone, I will add that email is a minor part of the cyberstalker strategy. This is why blocking their emails doesn’t stop them (they’re also smart enough to figure out it will take about 60 seconds to open a new email address to revive the attacks).

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  58. Redbaiter (7,605 comments) says:

    Hey Davinci, you lying coward, I have never ever used the phrase “homo knuckle-dragging leftist scum”. This is a totally false allegation that you continually make and is just the kind of Stalinist crap that we should fear from the kind of scum who would support this tribunal.

    These kind of tribunals are heaven sent for lying cowards like you and Pete George who drip false allegations all over the net without a skerrick of conscience concerning their lack of truth.

    Because you are homosexual yourself, you use a word I don’t recall ever using (homo) in an attempt to seek support among other homosexuals for your slanders.

    You and PG are two of the best reasons I can think of as to why these kind of tribunals need to be resisted completely by people who value freedom.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  59. RRM (9,441 comments) says:

    Hey Davinci, you lying coward, I have never ever used the phrase “homo knuckle-dragging leftist scum”.

    So when DVM referred to “Colin Craig’s new bitch” you assumed he was talking about you…?

    Noted… :-)

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  60. Redbaiter (7,605 comments) says:

    Davinci is obsessed with Redbaiter.

    He hardly ever writes about anyone else.

    You (and Davinci’s husband nasska) suffer a similar obsession.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  61. big bruv (13,271 comments) says:

    “need to be resisted completely by people who value freedom.”

    Said by the man who wants to deprive Kiwis of a large slice of the freedom they currently enjoy.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  62. Redbaiter (7,605 comments) says:

    A self-confessed gun grabber accuses others of “depriving people of freedom??”

    What a joke you are Bigot.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  63. RRM (9,441 comments) says:

    I have never ever used the phrase “homo knuckle-dragging leftist scum”

    A quick Google search for “redbaiter knuckle dragger” shows this statement is only half true…
    :lol: LOL – when you’ve been as unhinged a lunatic as you have, for as long a period of time as you have, your DNA samples can be found all over the internet baiter. Sticking the pages of all sorts of dubious publications together.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  64. big bruv (13,271 comments) says:

    My god!…do they let you have a gun Redbaiter?……That would be the first one I would grab.

    The fact remains that you and the rest of the bible bashing hard right want to deprive the majority of Kiwis of their rights. Most Kiwis get on Redbaiter, we can differ in our political views but at the end of the day we all manage to co exist.

    You and the rest of your religious bigots want to drag us back to the middle ages.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  65. kowtow (7,612 comments) says:

    bigot bruv

    the one themed wonder.

    It isn’t Christians who want to “drag you back to the Middle Ages”.

    BB needs to reset his sights but won’t as he is an anti Christian bigot as opposed to anti Muslim………3,2,1….. I hate all religions ,yeah right.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  66. Redbaiter (7,605 comments) says:

    Among the many wildly illogical assumptions that Bigot Bruv makes is the one where he thinks people should actually waste time confronting his worthless irrational and repetitive drivel.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  67. Pauleastbay (5,035 comments) says:

    Please suggest that the people who have made these proposals fuck off and kill themselves.

    This is nothing more than a job creation scheme.

    There are any number of laws already to deal with grooming, there are any number of laws that enable the prosecution of people who publish photographs of the ex etc..

    Redbaiter and others cause me distress and mental harm every day but I don’t need a collection of Wellington wankers to protect me.

    Politicians are desperate world wide to control the internet because it grants total freedom and there is one thing that politicians fear more than anything is a well informed electorate.

    If we allow any controls the internet is no longer of the people. Look at censorship at the Standard and imagine that applied web wide.

    So all proponents and supporters please kill yourselves again.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  68. Pete George (22,798 comments) says:

    Judith Collins at question time today:

    In particular, we will consider creating a new offence targeting offensive, indecent, or obscene digital communication that causes harm.

    Do opponents think that offensive, indecent, or obscene digital communication that causes harm be allowed to happen freely?

    Like threatening harm and showing pictures of mutiliated bodies or sexual violence?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  69. thedavincimode (6,531 comments) says:

    Perhaps I have erred and Craig’s bitch is right. But if so, I’m confident that substituting “marxist” for “leftist” renders the phrase capable of attribution with 100% accuracy. That is of course, not to say that the phrase “leftist scum” and other various combinations of words in the phrase I attributed to him haven’t been deployed frequently and with gay abandon as part initially, of years 1 to 10, and more recently, years 11 to 20, of his twenty year strategic plan to return the world and NZ in particular, to an even keel.

    nasska

    My observations which, fortunately, are not based upon first hand clinical experience with the subject, but rather upon the research comprising observations of various on-line interactions involving the subject, suggest to me that it wasn’t in fact a case of his mother dressing him funny, but rather that he actually wanted to wear her clothes to school in order to ingratiate himself with the mother figure. In that sense, the bullying was a consequence of his own feelings of inadequacy. He was punished (the bullying) for endeavouring to ingratiate himself with the mother figure (the inadequacy). As you might imagine, this was very damaging to what little personality with which he was equipped and partly explains the infantile destructive fantasy in which he perishes in a hail of hot lead fighting off the commie/raghead hordes. Yet tragically, he is so lacking in self-awareness that he cannot see that even if his glorious final stand was noticed, nobody would care. In the curious phenomenom that is his mind, he perceives this as achieving some form of martyrdom that justifies and validates his existence and expunges his post facto embarassment at wearing his mother’s clothes to school. You will have observed this ongoing turmoil in other ways as well. For example, his craving for acceptance, recognition and validation is reflected in his identification with the latest political figure to attract his attention; I refer to this as the “musical chairs behaviour”. His panic at realisation that the most recent object of his political affections isn’t getting him the attention he craves leads him to panic (what I refer to as “the music stopping”) leading him to lurch in favour of the next potential political figure that he perceives as satisfying his aspirations (or “the next great white hope” syndrome as I describe it). You will also note the occasional reference to himself in the third person (this thread for example) which again illustrates his internal tumoil in trying, at one level at least, to distance himself from his own persona, yet at another level, elevate himself beyond the rest of society in order to validate himself and justify his existence. It goes without saying that there is far greater compexity to the curious creature that is “the Redbaiter” than can be accomodated here, but I believe that this broad summary is a reasonable attempt in doing him some measure of justice.

    RRM

    Russell doesn’t leave his DNA all over the internet. Fortunately, it is confined to his keyboard.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  70. big bruv (13,271 comments) says:

    kowtow

    Oh yes, I despise all religions equally. Each and every one of the sky fairy superstitions is equally ridiculous.

    I can almost understand why somebody who has never had the benefit of an education might be persuaded into thinking that there is a sky fairy but it defies logic that any western nation still has people who think that there is an almighty.

    Mind you, some idiots still think that Obama is born in Kenya and that Sarah Palin is a genius.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  71. Pauleastbay (5,035 comments) says:

    It’s already there Peter and not nice but to think anything would be cured by handing it over to a politically appointed tribunal to oversea is naive in the extreme.

    National are as bad as labour at the moment wanting to stop kids falling out of trees.

    Remember lots of members of our society deal with sexual violence and mutilated bodies on a daily basis so it being on the interent is no big deal.

    If I threatened you with harm there is already adequate legislation to deal with it, it does not require more law and it especially does not require more muppets to oversea proposed law.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  72. graham (2,214 comments) says:

    And, big bruv once again drags religion into it.

    Big Bruv, how about you point us all to just one statement I have made here that proves your assertion that “… you and the rest of the bible bashing hard right want to deprive the majority of Kiwis of their rights … You and the rest of your religious bigots want to drag us back to the middle ages.”

    Just one statement that I personally have made, Big Bruv. That’s all I ask. Shouldn’t be too difficult for you to find.

    Incidentally, my Collins Dictionary defines a bigot as “a person who is intolerant, especially regarding religion, politics or race”. So who’s the bigot?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  73. Pete George (22,798 comments) says:

    A question was asked of Judith Collins on this ion the house today. The Labour benches kept loudly interjecting, and Andrew Little asked a highly hypocritical question:

    Andrew Little: Will the cyberbullying laws prevent a Minister from trawling through a citizen’s personal details and making them public to score political points?

    Collins went on to talk on bullying with a continued racket from Labour, closing with:

    I have to say that the worst of it is under the guise of anonymity. We must not underestimate the devastating effects of this new form of bullying, particularly on young schoolchildren. It has shown that it increases truancy, failure at school, and emotional problems of many young people such as depression, self-harm, and suicide.

    Again, it is absolutely very concerning that the Labour Opposition does not take this situation seriously.

    Yes, very concerning. Collins versus Little on bullying and hypocrisy.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  74. nasska (10,650 comments) says:

    thedavincimode

    He would have cut a fine figure in a corset & stockings & it is my guess that the ruse probably wasn’t revealed until puberty started……probably when he was 15 or 16.

    Hopefully the counselling offers some relief from the painful memories.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  75. Pauleastbay (5,035 comments) says:

    …………..It has shown that it increases truancy, failure at school, and emotional problems of many young people such as depression, self-harm, and suicide………………….

    So, bullying has just been invented has it?

    Bullying is older than prostitution- so politicians are going to change human nature – do bugger off.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  76. Redbaiter (7,605 comments) says:

    Pauleastbay- “Redbaiter and others cause me distress and mental harm every day”

    That’s an immensely gratifying revelation.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  77. V (668 comments) says:

    Trying to spend money on censoring the internet, sure sounds like a recipe for bankruptcy to me. The internet is larger than any finances we possible make available to do such a thing.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote

Leave a Reply

You must be logged in to post a comment.