“Public place” is defined in the act as “a place that, at any material time, is open to or is being used by the public, whether free or on payment of a charge, and whether any owner or occupier of the place is lawfully entitled to exclude or eject any person from that place; and includes any aircraft, hovercraft, ship or ferry or other vessel, train, or vehicle carrying or available to carry passengers for reward”.

So the examples it gives are all physical locations, but there’d no doubt be days of fascinating legal argument about the meaning of “used” and “place” and “owner”.

If it ever a court decided a “place” included a virtual space, I wonder what odds iPredict would give on certain KB commenters being the first to be clapped in irons?

The implication (and one reference) in the act you quote is audible words but it doesn’t exclude typed words as could be used:

addresses any words to any person intending to threaten, alarm, insult, or offend that person; or
uses any threatening or insulting words and is reckless whether any person is alarmed or insulted by those words…

If I told someone to fuck off.. what’s the charge? Disorderly behaviour?

Disorderly Behaviour is what the cops use when they have nothing. If you did do something, the charge would be more specific. It is another “offence” that needs to go, along with rather a lot else.

s4(b) does say “intending”, but it is still bad law.

There is no such thing as “Offensive” language. Being “offended” is a subjective description of one persons feelings, not of another persons actions, words, or behaviour.

A good lesson here about laws being made but the Police/enforcement agency enforcing it in a way that is not necessarily compatible with the intent of the lawmakers.

As is the case with the selective application of a good many laws.

Fault lies with the lawmakers in my opinion, who have a lot of responsiblity to make sure they get it right the first time.

I’m always ready to point the finger at our politicians, and there are certainly laws that could have been better worded, and more carefully considered, before being rushed through Parliament. But they don’t bear the majority of the blame for over-policing.

Because it’s impossible to allow for every single variable of interaction between people, the police have to be given discretion. I doubt any politician thought that saying “woof” to a police dog should result in arrest, but is it reasonable to expect them to foresee that and… what? Draft a clause specifically permitting woofing?

I see multiple instances of over-charging in the courts every week, caused by exactly this sort of thing – someone deciding to be a dickhead, but a harmless one, and a police officer (usually a fairly young one) deciding to treat it as a crime and bending a bit of some statute to fit. Even that is understandable (and perhaps even forgiveable, especially if that’s the tenth dickhead they’ve encountered that day) but what’s inexcusable is that senior officers don’t intervene to see that the charge is dropped and the young officer reminded that sticks and stones…

Excellent. It should not be a crime to be insulting.

Might want to check out the NZ Summary Offences Act 1981, then:

4. (1) Every person is liable to a fine not exceeding $1,000 who,—
…
(b) in any public place, addresses any words to any person intending to threaten, alarm, insult, or offend that person; or
(c) in or within hearing of a public place,—
(i) uses any threatening or insulting words and is reckless whether any person is alarmed or insulted by those words…

@Graeme

Or s4(2): “Every person is liable to a fine not exceeding $500 who, in or within hearing of any public place, uses any indecent or obscene words.”

I’m sure it’s an offence in NZ to swear at someone. If I told someone to fuck off.. what’s the charge? Disorderly behaviour?

If the provisions were not anti-terrorism, then they should not have been called so.

Otherwise, how is a non-lawyer supposed to understand this?

[gay voice]
HAY!!!

Edit – beauty, the edit function is back!

The specific provisions invoked were not restricted for use for only combatting Terrorism. It was included in the legislation as a good power to have in general. There is a criticism that can be made about the legislative process but using anti-terrorism laws against Iceland isn’t it.

eg, during the icelandic banking crisis the UK invoked anti-terrorism laws against icelandic banks and govt. There was no terrorism but the UK thought they’d have a go.