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).

Comments

Fee Fees Hurt?

[Anonymous Coward]

I'm offended by this bill and request the politicians be imprisoned.

Re:Fee Fees Hurt?

[epyT-R]

The whole point of passing laws like this is to encourage people to attack one another, preferably in the form of class warfare. Populations fighting themselves tend to ignore the tyrants at the helm.

Re:Fee Fees Hurt?

[aaaaaaargh!]

In this case it won't work against trolls, though. They should have spent some time on Usenet to actually get a clue what trolling is.

There have been cases were people with existing mental illnesses have been driven to suicide. The people harassing them knew what they were doing.

If the law was motivated by this, then why do they not restrict the law to not allow knowingly trolling people with mental illnesses? A "do not drive mentally ill people into suicide" law might make sense, provided such cases are not yet covered by existing laws.

But that is not their motivation. The primary motivation is to get additional means for wealthy people (including, of course, politicians) to sue bloggers and critiques. Another motivation is to cover the politicians' asses under extremely rare circumstances when bullying creates some public outrage, which usually happens in the form of a witch hunt that blown out of proportions by the medias.

Re:Fee Fees Hurt?

[jbolden]

We do this with physical pain and damage for centuries. Choke someone for 15 seconds is treated differently than choking them to unconsciousness. If someone starts to show deep outward signs that they are harmed an it is clear the harmer knows this and continues they got prosecuted. The degree of prosecution depends on the degree of harm.

Re:Fee Fees Hurt?

[Karmashock]

We have the first amendment... so... actually we're fine thanks.

Our government is constitutionally forbidden from passing such laws. *kiss kiss*

Re:Fee Fees Hurt?

[hey!]

Well, it may interest you to know that courts judging "emotional distress" is not some new Internet fad. In the year 1348 an innkeeper brought suit against a man who had been banging on his tavern door demanding wine. When the innkeeper stuck his head out the doorway to tell the man to stop, the man buried the hatchet he was carrying into the door by the innkeeper's head. The defendant argued that since there was no physical harm inflicted no assault had taken place, but the judged ruled against him [ de S et Ux. v. W de S (1348)]. Ever since then non-physical, non-financial harm has been considered both an essential element of a number of of crimes, a potential aggravating factor in others, and an element weighed in establishing civil damages.

This does *not*, however, mean that hurt feelings in themselves constitute a crime. It's a difficult and sometimes ambiguous area of the law, but the law doesn't have the luxury of addressing easy and clear-cut cases only.

As to why a new law is need now, when the infliction of emotional distress has been something the law has been working on for 667 years, I'd say that the power of technology to uncouple interactions from space and time has to be addressed. Hundreds of years ago if someone was obnoxious to you at your favorite coffeehouse, you could go at a different time or choose a different coffeehouse. Now someone intent on spoiling your interactions with other people doesn't have to coordinate physical location and schedule with you to be a persistent, practically inescapable nuisance.

Does this mean every interaction that hurts your feelings on the Internet is a crime? No, no more than everything that happens in your physical presence you take offense at is a crime.

Re:Fee Fees Hurt?

[davydagger]

You see, thats the thing with stuff like this is:

They don't

There is no intent for uniform of equal enforcement. It simply allows them to arrest who they want. Lets say two derps get into an argument on forums, about some politically relivant topic and it gets heated and words are exchanged that shouldn't have been. They can now pick and choose which one of them gets arrested, and who gets prosecuted.

You Owe Me An Apology

[magusxxx]

Translation: "I make more money than you do, so take it down or I'll ruin your life."

Religion is a choice!

[Skylinux]

Why does religion get lumped in with race and sex. Religion is a choice and does not deserve to be put next to things that you are.

Re:Fools getting the government they deserve

[Anonymous Coward]

Umm, no. You are free to post/say whatever you want - the 'State' doesn't approve anything.
You just need to be aware that if it causes 'Severe emotional stress' and a judge (and possibly jury depending on the incident involved) decide you had malicious intent you will be punished.

I'm a Kiwi living abroad. I'm always amazed at the way that some countries decry things like this....in New Zealand this would be looked at as a common sense type of thing. i.e. If you are stupid enough to try and convince someone to suicide and they do (as an example), you are an idiot and will get the book thrown at you.
If you troll a bit and don't cross a reasonably drawn line (which as a good rule of thumb could be 'would you say it in a bar to some drunk strangers') you are fine.
The government in NZ isn't going to jump up and down on you just because they decide something is not ok...the Law will work it out over time.

Re:Religion is a choice! Just as homosexuality.

[Anonymous Coward]

Religion is a choice in the same sense that homosexuality is a choice: You can chose to pretend to be what you aren't and to believe what you don't.

Re:Slippery slope

[Intrepid imaginaut]

This is a terrible law. The left and feminists in particular are infamous for instantly branding any disagreement, no matter how justified and rational, as hate. They'll damsel like crazy, weep crocodile tears and fire up a twitter mob, and next thing you know any objections to their brand of vicious insanity are stamped out. This law needs to be repealed immediately.

Re:No, it ISN'T free speech.

[sumdumass]

Its because you have no rights to impose on other free people your freedoms and rights outside of what they are willing to allow through contract or good will where the government is bound to not use the force of law to restrict the same.

In other words, my rights do not create an imposition on you and the government cannot take them away. The US constitution recognizes the right already exists and bars government from infringement of it.

Re:No, it ISN'T free speech.

[Anonymous Coward]

Nope, this isn't a free speech issue. Your post does not in any way, shape or form, constitute a counter to it, only a repeat of the canard of what YOU merkins maintain is "Free Speech" which is based SOLELY off your parochial laws.

Which only apply in the USA.

But you're so exceptional that your law should be universal because you're "gawd's awn cuntry!" and therefore inerrant.

Why should private individuals be allowed to restrict speech and then use government backed courts and police to enforce it and it NOT be a free speech problem?

Why should you have the freedom of consequences of speech but still allow laws against fraud, misrepresentation, perjury, libel, promulgation of child pornography, "piracy" of movies, music, TV and computer programs and all those other restrictions on speech? Why are NDA's not a restriction on free speech? Patents? Trademarks?

Because YOUR parochial laws say they aren't. Laws you agree with.

Well, in NZ, they agree that this isn't a free speech issue, so fuck off.

Re:Religion is a choice! Just as homosexuality.

[sudon't]

Belief isn't subject to the will. You can't simply start and stop believing anything, religious or not, of your own volition.

Give it a try.

Really? I wonder how there are atheists, as almost every child is inculcated with their parent's religious beliefs. I certainly became one of my own volition, long before there was an internet, or even another person to influence me. Any belief is subject to change, as long as the holder is willing to examine and question it. Give it a try.