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).
Indeed, who is going to tell what constitutes "serious emotional distress"? Are we simply witnessing the creation of "a right to be offended", or a new era of psychologist judges?
Attitudes make the difference between Space and Time: we want to MAX our temporal, and MIN our spatial extension.
Indeed, who is going to tell what constitutes "serious emotional distress"? Are we simply witnessing the creation of "a right to be offended", or a new era of psychologist judges?
I'm just wondering how the hell they plan to enforce it. From what I understand, it's already basically obligatory to use a VPN in NZ (e.g. to torrent or watch US netflix) so somebody using their VPN for trolling purposes doesn't seem far fetched.
In fact some ISPs have been providing the VPN for netflix etc. They are currently getting into a legal dispute over it.
The Grey Goo disaster happened 3 billion years ago. This rock is covered in self replicating machines!
You are looking at this from the wrong perspective, which is understandable given the US and NZ have completely different structures for how their laws are built.
Firstly laws in common law countries tend to be much much broader than laws in a legislative country such as the US. The expectation is that the courts will take the laws and interpret them and them implement those laws in accordance with precedents set in related laws. If the government or another party doesn't feel that the laws were applied correctly then the outcome will be appealed, potentially all the way to the high court.
As for your assertion that the laws will be abused by the wealthy it just wont happen. The courts in NZ and Australia are fiercely independent and has no qualms attacking political appointments or positions. To get some idea on the level of backlash that can occur have a look at the recent appointment of Michael Carmody to the position of Chief Justice in Queensland, He lasted 7 months. So if a wealth person or politician were to try to abuse these laws I think you would see them come unstuck real fast.
The US started as a common law country and its basis was the UK system however it has diverged significantly and is recognised as having significant components of civil law.
At the federal level there is no plenary statute which means courts at a federal level are unable to create precedent without that precedent being challenged. Although federal courts can create federal common law in the form of case law, such law must be linked one way or another to the interpretation of a particular federal constitutional provision, statute, or regulation.
This came to a head in the 1930s in Erie Railroad vs Tompkims. It also had the effect of showing federal courts had no authority over states if there was no federal impact.
In essence the US operates two types of legal systems. At a state level it is common law and at the federal level it is civil law.
There's one big problem with your rant (and a lot of others but let's focus): God doesn't exist. There are provably only one right given by nature: the right of the strong, that is that a stronger party can suppress a weaker party. Nature in itself doesn't hinder this which makes it a "right" to be taken by, again, the strong.
But humans are moral beings - evolved due to advantages of the group rather of the individual. This means that most communities creates rules of what is considered a correct behavior. HERE is where the ideas of human rights come from - not a hypothetical malevolent being.
People from the USA are always amazed when they hear anybody would try to enforce the spirit of the law, not the letter.
We're usually surprised when someone does either in any way not designed to be punitive.
"You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
People from the USA are always amazed when they hear anybody would try to enforce the spirit of the law, not the letter.
Laws should mean what they say. If they mean something other than what they say, they should be repealed or rewritten. If the police can arrest you, not because of what the law is, but what that cop thinks the laws should be (the spirit), then you are living in a police state.