Cyber-bullying

April 4th, 2013 at 1:00 pm by David Farrar

Judith Collins has announced:

  • Creating a new civil enforcement regime that includes setting up or appointing an approved agency as the first port of call for complaints.
  • Allowing people to take serious complaints to the District Court, which will be able to issue sanctions such as take-down orders and cease-and-desist notices.
  • Making it an offence to send messages and post material online that is grossly offensive, indecent, obscene, menacing or knowingly false, punishable by up to 3 months imprisonment or a $2,000 fine.
  • Creating a new offence of incitement to commit suicide, even in situations when a person does not attempt to take their own life, punishable by up to 3 years imprisonment.
  • Amending the Harassment, Privacy and Human Rights Acts to ensure they are up-to-date for digital communications. In some cases, existing laws were written before cell phones, instant messaging devices and social networking websites became common communication channels.

This is mainly based on the report, but with a key difference.

The Commission recommended a specialist Communications Tribunal, instead of the District Court. I think it is better to have it as part of the District Court, as there is less concern about scope creep.

I have no issue with the proposed law changes above, however one area remains a concern:

The FAQ says: The Government proposes adopting the 10 statutory principles recommended by the Law Commission, which are based on criminal and civil law and regulatory rules.

This is the area which concerns me the most. The principles are:

  1. A communication should not disclose sensitive personal facts about an individual.
  2. A communication should not be threatening, intimidating, or menacing.
  3. A communication should not be grossly offensive to a reasonable person in the complainant’s position.
  4. A communication should not be indecent or obscene.
  5. A communication should not be part of a pattern of conduct that constitutes harassment.
  6. A communication should not make a false allegation.
  7. A communication should not contain a matter that is published in breach of confidence.
  8. A communication should not incite or encourage anyone to send a message to a person with the intention of causing that person harm.
  9. A communication should not incite or encourage another person to commit suicide.
  10. A communication should not denigrate a person by reason of his or her colour, race, ethnic or national origins, religion, ethical belief, gender, sexual orientation, or disability.

I blogged last year on a legal analysis of the principles, and I think some are too wide-reaching.

I would encourage people to read the proposed law when it is introduced, and make sure they submit to select committee.

Tags: ,

58 Responses to “Cyber-bullying”

  1. dime (9,788 comments) says:

    will we still be allowed to take the piss out of PG?

    Vote: Thumb up 10 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  2. Longknives (4,686 comments) says:

    I recall Philu was going to take me to Court a while back for being mean to him. Still waiting for that Summons…

    Vote: Thumb up 7 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  3. Manolo (13,517 comments) says:

    dime, you must be a mind reader. I was about to ask exactly the same.

    Vote: Thumb up 7 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  4. EverlastingFire (291 comments) says:

    Law is supposedly aimed at “Cyber Bullying”, yet from the content it seems she wants to control all internet use.

    Vote: Thumb up 6 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  5. David Garrett (6,910 comments) says:

    Why on earth do we need yet another “agency” set up to deal with this “problem”? $1.5 million a year which could be much better spent in any number of ways, including making the Justice Department’s “three strikes” website truly informative. SST have been told that to improve this woeful website even to provide the offences committed, where they were committed, and the sentence given in each case would be “too resource intensive” i.e. “cost too much”. But here we have the government setting up a whole new bureaucracy – you can bet your ass it will cost more than the estimate – to solve a “problem” of very doubtful severity.

    Has anyone thought of advising kids and others upset by “cyber bullying” to turn off the bloody mobile, or tablet or whatever, and go and do something else?

    Vote: Thumb up 9 Thumb down 2 You need to be logged in to vote
  6. Harriet (4,735 comments) says:

    “The Revolution will be complete when the language is perfect.” ― George Orwell, 1984

    The NZ government’s off to a great start…..they can’t even get Marriage right. :cool:

    Vote: Thumb up 7 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  7. wreck1080 (3,853 comments) says:

    So under the new rules if I call some anonymous person a boofhead and to go shoot themselves, is that a criminal offence?

    I’d hope not.

    Vote: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  8. Pete George (23,418 comments) says:

    @1.10pm – if I had a dime for every time you made a munter of yourself I’d own you.

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 5 You need to be logged in to vote
  9. Pete George (23,418 comments) says:

    Has anyone thought of advising kids and others upset by “cyber bullying” to turn off the bloody mobile, or tablet or whatever, and go and do something else?

    Meaning they should never connect again? Messages don’t just disappear because you give it a break.

    Has anyone thought of advising kids and others upset by “school bullying” to turn off school and go and do something else?

    We could let bullies dictate what we can do and shouldn’t do by leaving them to their bullying – they want to stop people using social media, but hey, giving in to them is cool – and let everyone go and find something where there are no bullies. If there’s anywhere left to go.

    Vote: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 5 You need to be logged in to vote
  10. dime (9,788 comments) says:

    lol @ PG. when i read that i just remembered the simpsons episode where homer looks in a mirror and we get to see what he sees. a ripped dude with a full head of hair.

    good on you for your positive outlook though

    Vote: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  11. dime (9,788 comments) says:

    DG -“Has anyone thought of advising kids and others upset by “cyber bullying” to turn off the bloody mobile, or tablet or whatever, and go and do something else?”

    its not practical in this modern world.

    Vote: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  12. Harriet (4,735 comments) says:

    “…A communication should not be grossly offensive to a reasonable person in the complainant’s position….”

    GREAT!

    So now we get to call child molesters and rapists what they would like us to call them! – and we get to pay for it!

    And who the fuck does Judith think would stand up as the spokesperson for child molesters’ emotions?

    Probably a laywer just like her – a complete moron – and a bludger who will be paid from legal aid so that child molesters arn’t spoken of ‘poorly’!

    JUDITH COLLINS IS A SILLY MAD OLD BAT! :cool:

    Vote: Thumb up 4 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  13. Harriet (4,735 comments) says:

    “…A communication should not be grossly offensive to a reasonable person in the complainant’s position….”

    I can see the office bearers of the Mongrel Mob, the Hell’s Angels, Black Power, Highway 61 etc ALL agreeing that anyone who is not a MEMBER of any outlaw motor cycle club, cannot say anything offensive at all about members of all clubs!

    Judith Collins – in my opinion – is not very good at much of anything! :cool:

    Vote: Thumb up 5 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  14. peteremcc (342 comments) says:

    It should not be illegal for communications to be offensive, indecent, obscene or false and this bill needs some serious changes.

    Also:

    “A communication should not denigrate a person by reason of his or her colour, race, ethnic or national origins, religion, ethical belief, gender, sexual orientation, or disability.”

    Does this mean mocking someone for HAVING a religion would be illegal? If so, this bill is crazy.

    Vote: Thumb up 6 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  15. scrubone (3,090 comments) says:

    Has anyone thought of advising kids and others upset by “school bullying” to turn off school and go and do something else?

    Have you ever considered that cyber bullying includes posting defamatory items about people, in order to destroy their business?

    You get the names of a few accountants, and you type them into google. First search result for John Smith Accountant says he’s embezzled money. You gonna do the hard yards to check that out, or do you cross him off the list?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  16. David Garrett (6,910 comments) says:

    srubone: John Smith accountant can track down whoevers posted that and sue them…But OK, lets assume for the sake of argument, that there IS actually a problem that needs dealing to here…why do we need an entire new agency, with its own budget, to do that? Will we next be discussing who shoulder tapped the new head of the Cyber bullying police?

    dime: I don’t agree. I think my children are too young to cope with what might come at them, or what they might find, via a cell phone. So they don’t have one. If you are an adult, and you need or want a “cyber” device for other reasons, you can delete the offending message(s), surely? I am a little surprised to see you lining up on side of the “everyone needs protection from everything” team…

    Vote: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  17. scrubone (3,090 comments) says:

    David Garrett: Well, suing is expensive and time consuming and the courts don’t always appreciate the damage done.

    But I’m not saying yay or nay on this law, just pointing out that ignoring the problem does not make it go away. Have a read of this item: http://chronicle.com/article/I-Will-Ruin-Him/136693/

    Vote: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  18. dime (9,788 comments) says:

    DG – i can just imagine who it plays out in high school. everyone is on FB etc. then something happens. it turns nasty. pack mentality. is the kid meant to disengage and be alienated?

    “Making it an offence to send messages and post material online that is grossly offensive, indecent, obscene, menacing or knowingly false, punishable by up to 3 months imprisonment or a $2,000 fine.” – so that would stop dirtbags sending unsolicited pictures of their junk to young girls etc

    also, if youre a kid and youre depressed it might not be that easy to just shut off and walk away.

    i could go on and on but you get the idea

    Vote: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  19. krazykiwi (9,189 comments) says:

    More bureaucracy.

    Which part of our increasingly bloated state will be mothballed to free up resources for this?

    Oh, that’s right, no part.

    Of course there’s always isolated ‘justification’ for every little increase.

    Vote: Thumb up 6 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  20. David Garrett (6,910 comments) says:

    dime: Yeah, I do indeed “get the idea”…but I am bringing my kids up not to be concerned if they are sometimes “the odd one out” or they are the one who says “this is a stupid idea” even if, as you suggest, the mindless pack thinks or does otherwise. That, in my view, is part of being what a proper person is all about – being able to stand apart from what has aptly been called “the sheeple” if that is necessary or right.

    Or maybe childhood and adolescence is just too long ago for me to understand…I dunno…

    I am just uncomfortable with “the gummint” having to step into every human interaction to try and ensure everyone plays nicely…that shouldnt be necessary, and the track record of the efficacy of such interventions is not good…

    Vote: Thumb up 5 Thumb down 3 You need to be logged in to vote
  21. muggins (3,340 comments) says:

    I don’t think a child molester or rapist should be able to complain about someone calling them a child molester or rapist, but I certainly was pretty pissed off when a certain blogger called me a paedophile just because I didn’t agree with him saying that Robin Bain was molesting one of his daughters.
    He asked me to sue him, but I thought why spend my money suing that clown. Now at least I will be able to make a complaint about him at no cost to me.
    Ok, I didn’t have to look at his blog, and in fact I didn’t know he had a blog until others posted links to it, and I no longer look at it, but I believe Judith Collins is on the right track.
    However, I also agree that David Garrett makes some good points,and one has to admire him for not resorting to using a pseudonym like most of the rest of us. Maybe we should all follow his example and post under our given names. That might cut down some of the abuse,etc., at least on kiwiblog.
    But I guess if we all had to post under our own names then hardly anyone would be up for it, so it would be all over for kiwiblog.

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 3 You need to be logged in to vote
  22. Pete George (23,418 comments) says:

    the “everyone needs protection from everything” team…

    There’s no such team.

    Most people recognise that everyone needs some protections, otherwise we wouldn’t have any laws.

    Cyber bullying is a very difficult to address, social media is (relatively) new, vast, rapidly growing and rapidly changing. If it was totally unregulated and totally exempt from any laws it would risk becoming horrendous and useless.

    You hardly hear complaints about laws limiting spam email these days, if there were no controls it would have made emailing virtually useless.

    We need rules in schools, we need laws on the streets, so it’s logical that we may need some sort of laws applying to cyberspace. Not to protect “everyone from everything”, but to find some protections that don’t impose too many restrictions.

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 5 You need to be logged in to vote
  23. scrubone (3,090 comments) says:

    I don’t think a child molester or rapist should be able to complain about someone calling them a child molester

    There’s a convicted terrorist in the US called Brett Kimberlin who’s pretty much trying to do exactly that – sue anyone who calls him a convicted terrorist.

    Vote: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  24. Fentex (913 comments) says:

    If this description of the suggested change is accurate…

    an offence to send messages and post material online that was grossly offensive, indecent, obscene, menacing or knowingly false, punishable by up to three months imprisonment or a $2000 fine.

    …it seems silly. Re-creating criminal libel, and with such wide parameters, will cause an explosion of complaints.

    Currently with defamation a tort the cost of bringing an action is a natural limiter on suits and keeps the cost away from the public purse.

    But this, which would criminalise many comments on this blog, is a preposterously broad assault on freedom of speech.

    Vote: Thumb up 4 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  25. Judith (8,531 comments) says:

    I wonder if the same law will apply to organised internet groups (e.g. facebook groups) that stalk, harass and defame people, including planning events like harassment in their work place, and at social events etc of the people they find exception with. Could have big consequences for one particular such group I can think of – but then some of them are already being dealt with by existing laws. I guess the changes will make that process easier.

    Vote: Thumb up 4 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  26. ross69 (3,652 comments) says:

    Lawyer Steven Price has blogged about the new law.

    http://www.medialawjournal.co.nz

    Vote: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 2 You need to be logged in to vote
  27. ross69 (3,652 comments) says:

    Judith,

    I think you’ll find that the Bill of Rights confers various rights, like freedom of expression. So, no, we’ll still be able to talk about David Bain and how he got away with murder. :)

    Vote: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  28. muggins (3,340 comments) says:

    ross69 (2,183) Says:

    April 4th, 2013 at 3:12 pm
    Judith,

    I think you’ll find that the Bill of Rights confers various rights, like freedom of expression. So, no, we’ll still be able to talk about David Bain and how he got away with murder.

    He didn’t get away with murder,ross, he just served a few years short of what he should have. I wonder if he would be able to complain about people calling him a murderer? He might be able to. Well, I for one don’t intend to stop, or at least not until his compensation claim is turned down, so we shall see what we shall see.

    Vote: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 2 You need to be logged in to vote
  29. Black with a Vengeance (1,765 comments) says:

    Coulda shoulda woulda…good luck enforcing that.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  30. muggins (3,340 comments) says:

    Judith (1,931) Says:

    April 4th, 2013 at 3:07 pm
    I wonder if the same law will apply to organised internet groups (e.g. facebook groups) that stalk, harass and defame people, including planning events like harassment in their work place, and at social events etc of the people they find exception with. Could have big consequences for one particular such group I can think of – but then some of them are already being dealt with by existing laws. I guess the changes will make that process easier.

    I reckon that law might apply to posters who surreptitiously post details about other posters.
    And I wonder if it will also apply to a person who lies about other posters. Could have big consequences for one person I can think of, should she continue to do so once the law comes in. At the moment the only punishment [ at least on kiwiblog] is a few demerit points,plus a warning not to do it again.

    Vote: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 2 You need to be logged in to vote
  31. Judith (8,531 comments) says:

    Well if anyone knew about telling lies on Kiwiblog, you certainly would. In fact, I would go so far as to call you an expert on unreliable historical recall. But don’t you worry, your talent hasn’t gone un-noticed. The proof has been provided and you have received the recognition you deserve from those best placed to know. :-)

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  32. David Garrett (6,910 comments) says:

    What do you do for paid employment PG?

    Is THAT cyber bullying? I have asked you many times, and the question is clearly one you don’t want to answer (No, dont blather on about your having already answered it, you haven’t….I want to know what you get PAID for doing, not what you do to keep busy)

    Vote: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  33. Pete George (23,418 comments) says:

    Judith Collins ‏@JudithCollinsMP
    For those wondering what ‘objectionable’ means this link provides the answer.

    http://www.legislation.govt.nz/act/public/1993/0094/latest/DLM313407.html

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 2 You need to be logged in to vote
  34. muggins (3,340 comments) says:

    Judith (1,932) Says:

    April 4th, 2013 at 4:28 pm
    Well if anyone knew about telling lies on Kiwiblog, you certainly would. In fact, I would go so far as to call you an expert on unreliable historical recall. But don’t you worry, your talent hasn’t gone un-noticed. The proof has been provided and you have received the recognition you deserve from those best placed to know.

    Yes, Judith , I do know about all about lies being told on kiwiblog by certain David Bain supporters. So far as unreliable historical recall goes, you are a master at it. But I would refer to it as a deliberate misrepresentation of the facts rather than unreliable recall.
    And what about the double -speak. ” You have received the recognition you deserve from those best placed to know”.
    Yes, I have received thanks from certain people for my efforts in pointing out all the lies that David Bain has told, but I don’t know how you would know that.

    Vote: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 3 You need to be logged in to vote
  35. Judith (8,531 comments) says:

    Oh muggins, did you think I was talking to you, why ever would you think that? Rather narcissistic of you isn’t it?

    Vote: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 3 You need to be logged in to vote
  36. David Garrett (6,910 comments) says:

    Well, there’s one way to make Mr Middle of the Road piss off…just ask him what he does for a living, and silence ensues!

    Vote: Thumb up 6 Thumb down 2 You need to be logged in to vote
  37. Northland Wahine (660 comments) says:

    It’s called, delete, ignore, push the “x” button.

    If the messages are physically threatening, report them to the police. Seriously, if parents aren’t stomping this on the head as soon as it appears, they need to hand in their adult card. Having taken on the care of a very attractive about to be 14 yr old girl, not a single post on facebook goes unnoticed. Her cellphone stays home during school hours and because I pay for monthly top up, I get to take the phone off her when I choose.

    I’m sure there are those who think I am invading her privacy. Guess what, I am. Why? Because she’s a kid and I’m the adult and I’m the one responsible for her.

    Vote: Thumb up 6 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  38. Judith (8,531 comments) says:

    David Garrett (3,499) Says:
    April 4th, 2013 at 6:18 pm
    ————————-

    I think you’d get silence from a lot of people David – basically its none of your business.

    Are you trying to suggest that a persons opinion on this blog becomes more valuable or less valuable depending on their occupation?

    Perhaps we could use the data already collected on what occupations are more trusted – lets split it down the middle, the first 20 – !

    I’ll still get a say that way, and I won’t have to keep arguing with you! ;-) {smile}

    Reader’s Digest Trust Poll 2012 Professions

    1. Firefighters

    2. Paramedics

    3. rescue volunteers

    4. Nurses

    5. Pilots

    6. Doctors

    7. Pharmacists

    8. Veterinarians

    9. Armed forces

    10. Police

    11. teachers

    12. scientists

    13. Childcare workers

    14. farmers

    15. Dentists

    16. Bus/train/tram drivers

    17. Chefs

    18. hairdressers

    19. Builders

    20. Plumbers

    21. Mechanics

    22. truck drivers

    23. Waiters

    24. shop assistants

    25. Accountants

    26. Bankers

    27. Charity collectors

    28. Lawyers

    29. religious ministers

    30. taxi drivers

    31. financial planners

    32. Call centre operators

    33. Chief executive

    officers

    34. Journalists

    35. real estate agents

    36. insurance salespeople

    37. sex workers

    38. Car salespeople

    39. Door-to-door

    salespeople

    40. telemarketers

    http://www.readersdigest.co.nz/new-zealands-most-trusted-professions-2012

    Vote: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 2 You need to be logged in to vote
  39. Steve (North Shore) (4,538 comments) says:

    Cyber Bullying my fucking arse. Everyone has a choice.
    Turn it off – disconnect – uninstall – tell them to fuck off – ban them
    Oh, hang on a minute – banning. Linda at the Strandard bans – gives an amnesty – and censors.

    The main thing is don’t let the arsewipes bully you, HTFU and stop being a sook

    Vote: Thumb up 6 Thumb down 2 You need to be logged in to vote
  40. David Garrett (6,910 comments) says:

    Well said Wahine, as usual…I have always told you, you should be running the country! Or at least right hand woman to a certain cabinet Minister..

    Judith: when Mr Middle of the Road stops referring to my sometime occupation I will stop referring to his… at least I am only defrauding myself out of time when I am playing on here….I am advised that Petey might have an EMPLOYER who might have an opinion…or perhaps he’s a part timer…a bloke as smart as him would probably only need to record a couple of billable ones a day to pay the mortgage…

    Vote: Thumb up 5 Thumb down 3 You need to be logged in to vote
  41. Pauleastbay (5,035 comments) says:

    Steve (North Shore)

    You appear very aggressive this evening. I particuarly find your use of capitals threatening even if I don’t know what they mean.

    I find being called a sook very intimidating and it makes it difficult for me to concentrate knowing some may have a negative opinion of me , that I am different from all the other boys.

    If you continue like this I will have to write to David and petiton him to make this blog a ‘ safe place’, Hopefully he will stop nasty types out there offering honest comments and sexist jokes so we can all be really really fucking bland

    Vote: Thumb up 7 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  42. David Garrett (6,910 comments) says:

    PEB: I share your pain…I find when someone SHOUTS at me – even in cyber space – I get all wobbly and need a nice lie down…

    Seriously though, back shortly after my downfall I got a daily blagging on here…several friends said “how can you stand it day after day?” The answer was of course “I fuck off and do something else if it bothers me”….I realise it might not be that simple or easy for young kids, but the principle remains the same….

    Vote: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 3 You need to be logged in to vote
  43. Viking2 (11,337 comments) says:

    A communication should not denigrate a person by reason of his or her colour, race, ethnic or national origins, religion, ethical belief, gender, sexual orientation, or disability.

    HMM, well first we need to know what a “communication” will be defined as.

    Communication is a very wide term.

    Collins today was pratelling on about how after her trip, at our expense, to capitals yonder, the world was watching what we are doing.
    So once more we become the trial horse for the sopcialists and control freaks and probably the Potus.

    Why must we lead the world in all this bullshit?

    Just more nanny staus rot designed to beat Kiwi’s up.

    But then Parliament is full of either failing unionists or failing lawyers. Ones as bad as the other.

    Vote: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  44. graham (2,314 comments) says:

    Oh I’m so glad that link provided by Pete George clarifies what’s objectionable.

    a publication is objectionable if it describes, depicts, expresses, or otherwise deals with matters such as sex, horror, crime, cruelty, or violence in such a manner that the availability of the publication is likely to be injurious to the public good.

    Who gets to decide what is injurious? How much violence is too much? I’ve never seen the “Jigsaw” movies but from what I understand they’re pretty nasty. So do they get banned? Violent video games?

    I had a friend whose father wouldn’t allow them to watch the “Dukes of Hazzard”, because it portrayed police in a bad light. So is “The Dukes of Hazzard” injurious to the public good?

    Vote: Thumb up 4 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  45. David Garrett (6,910 comments) says:

    graham: exactly…”injurious to the public good” can only ever be subjective…similar to “not in the public interest”…I am not sure how the hell you pick a person to decide either question …. perhaps we dont: maybe a jury composed of the stereotype “people on the [naenae] omnibus” would be better? They have juries at film festivals don’t they?

    Vote: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  46. SPC (5,531 comments) says:

    The issue according to No Right Turn

    Back in the dark ages, when spousal rape was legal and homosexuality was a crime, there was a criminal offence in this country of “criminal libel”. Publishing material “designed to insult any person or likely to injure his reputation by exposing him to hatred, contempt and ridicule” wasn’t just a matter for defamation lawyers; it was a crime punishable by two years imprisonment. The law was clearly incompatible with the Bill of Rights Act (not to mention with modern ideas about defamation being a tort), and so it was repealed in 1992.

    Now Judith Collins wants to bring it back – but only on the internet. Her proposals to deal with cyber-bullying (the culmination of the Law Commission’s appalling work on the subject) include

    an offence to send messages and post material online that was grossly offensive, indecent, obscene, menacing or knowingly false, punishable by up to three months imprisonment or a $2000 fine.

    The prohibition on posting “knowingly false” material isn’t aimed at climate change deniers and online advertisers, but rather at protecting people from false allegations i.e. being defamed. So, if you accuse someone of being a child molester in anonymous letters stuffed in letterboxes, its defamation and a tort. Post it online and its a crime and jail. Clearly, “doing it on the internet” is an aggravating factor, at least in the minds of the elderly technophobes now running the government.

    (As for the “grossly offensive, indecent, [or] obscene” bit, this seems to go well beyond the current standards in the Films, Videos, and Publications Classification Act 1993 to allow censorship of a far wider range of material, but only online. Freedom of expression? Apparently the internet is itself a reason for limiting it, or something…)

    This law is not needed. The government is already proposing extending the Harassment Act 1997 to cover cyberspace, and that seems sufficient to address any actual harm. The proposals go well beyond that, and run the risk of rolling back twenty years of progress on freedom of speech. We should not tolerate it.

    http://norightturn.blogspot.co.nz/2013/04/the-return-of-criminal-libel.html

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  47. Redbaiter (8,234 comments) says:

    National and Labour- The United Socialist Totalitarian Front.

    Dull and stupid Labour and treacherous and disgusting National.

    Incoherent and incompetent Shearer and the thug Collins and the coward Key.

    My contempt for politicians (and their toadies) grows greater by the day.

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  48. expat (4,048 comments) says:

    Only politicians?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  49. big bruv (13,660 comments) says:

    “The United Religious Totalitarian Front”

    Fixed it for you Bedwetter.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  50. Pete George (23,418 comments) says:

    punishable by up to three months imprisonment or a $2000 fine

    SPC/NRT makes a good case against this apparent over reaction to an online problem, but may be exaggerating the likely penalites. That is presumably the maximum penalty, but maximum sentences are rarely applied, especially for first offences.

    Has anyone thought of advising kids and others upset by “cyber bullying” to turn off the bloody mobile, or tablet or whatever, and go and do something else?

    David Garrett suggests a simpler solution, but then shows one reason why this can be useless advice. Turning off and doing something else won’t necessarily stop abuse.

    Having potentially turned off and gone to do something else due to upset (not actually the case, my daughter arrived from overseas yesterday and I chose her company over DG’s silly little games) I remained the target of DG’s (and others) current campaign of harrassment in my absence.

    DG at 4.45 – false claim, it’s not that I don’t want to, I’ve told you I have said in the past and others will know, and I’ve also said I’m simply choosing to not respond to your line of attack.

    DG at 6.16 pm – false, you’re making things up.

    DG at 7.10 pm – false accusation, and as you know the facts it means you are lying. I made it clear last week that I think that discussion was over. You (and others) keep trying to bring things up again repeatedly, as you have done on this thread. And your admission “I am advised” shows that you are not acting alone, it has been obvious there has been a small group here trying the same old lines of attack, including making insidious threats.

    Is THAT cyber bullying?

    It has some characteristics of bullying. It is ongoing, unprovoked, a group versus one, it seems designed to intimidate and discredit, and lying and threats are involved.

    Ironically some of this is demonstrated on a thread about cyber bullying.

    But bullying requires a victim who will be “upset” by what is said. I’ve stood up to worse. But David, what you are doing reflects far more on your character than mine, and some of that ain’t pretty.

    I repeat, I think that the discussion last month has been done to death and is best finished. And you are not even addressing that, you are targeting me personally with some sort attempt at ongoing harassment. This appears to be linked to a small number of others.

    You are establishing a public record of poor behaviour. You are the victim of your own bully-like actions.

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  51. Cactus Kate (549 comments) says:

    Right well there goes the Kiwiblog, Standard and Whaleoil blogs then….gone.
    Lucky I’ve got an exemption surely?
    These rules are ridiculous.

    Vote: Thumb up 4 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  52. Pete George (23,418 comments) says:

    As per Ross69’s link, Steven price’s comments are very good – Digital harrassment remedies coming

    Justice Minister Judith Collins has (by and large) accepted the Law Commission’s recommendations to better protect victims of cyber-harrassment.

    I think these reforms are justified. The Law Commission has made a good case that there’s plenty of cyber-bullying going on, and some of it is very harmful indeed.

    He has some concerns and criticisms but the overall the reforms seem to have solid legal profession involvement.

    To some extent, the devil will be in the details. The government has left a lot of work to the drafters of the legal framework.

    Incidentally, that legal framework will be contained in regulations. That strikes me as a little bit odd. The government is creating a new remedies regime, and conferring extra juridiction upon the courts. The Law Commission was envisaging a statute. The advantage of regulations is that they can be easily changed without full Parliamentary rigmarole and scrutiny. The disadvantage of regulations is that they can be easily changed without full Parliamentary rigmarole and scrutiny. I would hope that at least the essential foundations of this new law will be set out in a statute.

    Still a work in progress.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  53. graham (2,314 comments) says:

    big bruv at 6:25 am:

    “The United Religious Totalitarian Front”

    Really? So I’m fascinated here, big bruv – exactly how many of Labour and National politicians are religious? As a percentage, or as a total number, either will do fine.

    Because you’re implying that these moves are as a result of a religious majority within those two parties, which I very much doubt. Quite simply, I think the number of religious people in those parties is a minority, and hence they can’t be influencing the outcomes.

    But, y’know, if you have the stats to back up what appears to be just outright bigotry, by all means let’s see them.

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  54. KiwiGreg (3,246 comments) says:

    Yup the big problem in New Zealand is insufficient laws.

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  55. muggins (3,340 comments) says:

    Judith (1,938) Says:

    April 4th, 2013 at 5:57 pm
    Oh muggins, did you think I was talking to you, why ever would you think that? Rather narcissistic of you isn’t it?

    Judith (1,938) Says:

    April 4th, 2013 at 4:28 pm
    Well if anyone knew about telling lies on Kiwiblog, you certainly would. In fact, I would go so far as to call you an expert on unreliable historical recall. But don’t you worry, your talent hasn’t gone un-noticed. The proof has been provided and you have received the recognition you deserve from those best placed to know.

    Judith, seeing as your post immediatly followed mine I thought you were replying to my post. Are you now implying it wasn’t me you were replying to? Were you just talking to yourself about yourself?

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  56. Judith (8,531 comments) says:

    muggins (2,325) Says:
    April 5th, 2013 at 10:21 am
    ———————-

    Muggins you may or may not notice that when posting something on here it appears at about the time the ‘submit comment’ is pushed. The time it takes type a message from when a previous post is read, can mean that sometimes other posts appear in between, sometimes not. So a post immediately following yours, may or may not be meant for you personally, or it may just be generic. If its not named to you, you actually have no way of knowing do you? The one thing you can be sure of though, I don’t post messages to myself on public message boards – do you?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  57. muggins (3,340 comments) says:

    Judith,
    Stop trying to be a smart-alec. If you were not replying to me then who were you replying to? Who was the “you” you were referring to if it wasn’t me or yourself?
    And as far as you not posting messages to yourself on public message boards, you may say that you don’t but given your history why would you expect me to believe anything you say?

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  58. graham (2,314 comments) says:

    Hmmm … I sense some cyber-bullying going on here.

    Vote: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote

Leave a Reply

You must be logged in to post a comment.