Slashdot Mirror
Trolls No Longer Welcome In New Zealand
An anonymous reader writes: Legislation designed to prevent cyber-bullying has passed its final hurdle in the New Zealand Parliament, making it a crime to send harmful messages or put damaging images online. The Harmful Digital Communications Bill passed 116 to 5. The Register reports: "The bill creates a regime under which digital communications causing 'serious emotional distress' are subject to an escalating regime that starts as 'negotiation, mediation or persuasion' but reaches up to creating the offenses of not complying with an order, and 'causing harm by posting digital communication.' The bill covers posts that are racist, sexist, or show religious intolerance, along with hassling people over disability or sexual orientation. There's also a new offense of incitement to suicide (three years' jail).
NZ is a common law country so over time case history will begin to determine what the courts will see as problem material and what doesn't. I also suspect they will start near the bar of what would cause a problem if it was published in newspapers or on billboards. Something I'm sure there is existing case law about.
This sort of subjective law is actually quite common in Common Law countries, and seems to work reasonably well in practice. There are typically certain requirements, such as having to show actual harm took place (psychologist's report etc.) which means mere offence isn't enough. The prosecution would have to show, for example, that someone deliberately set out to harm a vulnerable individual.
There have been cases were people with existing mental illnesses have been driven to suicide. The people harassing them knew what they were doing. Society has an interest in protecting people from that kind of thing, because it's not a free speech issue. Harassment isn't free speech, it isn't necessary to allow it in order to allow full freedom to express unpopular ideas.
const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
It's not YOUR definition in YOUR country's law as free speech, but that doesn't make it free speech BECAUSE IT'S NOT THE FUCKING USA!!!!!
Tell me, why is an act in the USA that, were it done by the government, is an infringement on free speech not so when done by a private corporation? It's the same fucking thing being done! "Because our constitution says so" is NOT an answer. Because it's the same answer that refutes your claim here: it isn't a free speech issue because the NZ law says it isn't. So give us the logical reason why this is
a) put in your constitution (it didn't HAVE to be otherwise)
b) the right one for all humanity to follow as the ideal (otherwise other countries and people can justifiably decide differently)
Free (political) speech is the traditional interpretation of relevant common law that dates back almost 1000yrs, it is not specifically codified in most commonwealth countries but I'm pretty sure the people who wrote the bill of rights were well aware of English common law and similar traditions in France. Speaker's corner in Hyde Park has been the icon for that tradition since the 1850's. Under the traditional interpretation you have a right to broadcast your opinion and you can poke fun at me via parody, but you don't have the right to deliberately misinform the public in order to defame me, nor do you have the right to follow me around and shout at me. For example, in most commonwealth countries the Phelps family would be classified as a "serial pest" and would quite likely spend some time in the lock up for harassment. It has nothing to do with the vile things they say, it's all about the time, place, and manner, they choose to say it.
Commonwealth countries also do not elect unqualified judges from the general population, they are appointed on merit and experience, not popularity.
And did you exchange a walk on part in the war for a lead role in a cage? - Pink Floyd.