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?

[gyepi]

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?

Re:Fee Fees Hurt?

[ArmoredDragon]

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.

Re:Fee Fees Hurt?

[baker_tony]

No, because NZ isn't nearly as full of scum lawyers as U.S. there SHOULD hopefully be sense applied here.

Re:Fee Fees Hurt?

[Harlequin80]

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.

Re: Fee Fees Hurt?

[NIK282000]

Good luck with your VPN. I've been in Australia for the past 2 months and VPN connections have been blocked nearly everywhere I have gone. NZ is the Canada of Australia, I have no doubt that they try to follow the leader and prevent the use of VPNs as well.

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?

[AmiMoJo]

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.

Re:Fee Fees Hurt?

[Truth_Quark]

The claim is that it won't create "a right to be offended", because the term "Serious emotional distress" is supposed to exclude mere outrage. Nor embarrassment, anxiety or worry.

(See paragraph 10 on page 3 of the ministry of Justice's briefing on the bill).

Re: Fee Fees Hurt?

[TheTurtlesMoves]

In fact some ISPs have been providing the VPN for netflix etc. They are currently getting into a legal dispute over it.

Re:Fee Fees Hurt?

[lgw]

The claim is that it won't create "a right to be offended", because the term "Serious emotional distress" is supposed to exclude mere outrage. Nor embarrassment, anxiety or worry.

It always starts that way, and usually ends at "say anything that offends the ruling party and they throw your ass in jail". On the internet this seems to happen at internet speed, to. Most countries that forced ISPs to block a list of "child abuse/exploitation" IP addresses or site, which of course were not made public, only took 3 years or so before opposition party's material mysteriously was being blocked. Funny how that works.

The only real way to protect speech critical of the ruling party is to protect all speech (we're talking at the criminal level here, not torts for libel etc). Anything else is the camel's nose under the tent.

Re:Fee Fees Hurt?

[PhilHibbs]

A judge. They's what the word means. They make judgements, it's their job.

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?

[Harlequin80]

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.

Re:Fee Fees Hurt?

[Harlequin80]

Rubbish. Australia has a blocklist for illegal material and that has never been extended to political material.

Re:Fee Fees Hurt?

[Joce640k]

People from the USA are always amazed when they hear anybody would try to enforce the spirit of the law, not the letter.

Re:Fee Fees Hurt?

[Joce640k]

The USA's famous "right" to free speech only applies to dialog between you and the government.

Other citizens don't have to put up with your bullshit and your right to free speech isn't being violated in the slightest when they tell you to STFU.

Re:Fee Fees Hurt?

[dave420]

Slippery slope fallacy detected! I guess we should get rid of laws, too, as eventually there could be a really bad one. Yay for no logic at all! It's so easy!

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?

[jbolden]

The USA is also a common law country.

Re:Fee Fees Hurt?

[jbolden]

Which countries did that happen in? I know of lots of countries (pretty much all of them) that have anti-child porn laws. I know of very few that have anything remotely like an open internet and don't have a healthy opposition on it. So I'd like more than say 1 example, certainly something rising to most.

As for your general comment. Anarchy scares people do to violence. Attacks and harms they or friends suffer upsets people. It quickly creates situations where the environment is seen as unsafe and there is a demand for law and order immediately. That undermines freedom. A regulated environment conversely allows for the expansion of freedoms because harms can be contained.

Re:Fee Fees Hurt?

[TapeCutter]

So you're saying, the road to world peace is paved with free entertainment?

Re:Fee Fees Hurt?

[Anonymous Coward]

And as a common law country, the government is welcome to be contradictory to its own laws due to sovereign immunity. I'm sure you can submit your claim that being fined or complained at for your online behaviour is emotional distress (and you'd be right to do so) but even if you're right, the rulers have a permanent wildcard they can play against you, always.

Re: Fee Fees Hurt?

[Anonymous Coward]

Lol. And who, pray tell, would take that status away from them? The government who imposed on the ISPs what they can or cannot do? You're so naive it almost hurts. Face it: the internet we grew to know is dead. Its murderers rule unopposed and unassailable over us. They have won. They have triumphed. Forever.

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?

[TapeCutter]

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.

Re:Fee Fees Hurt?

[tehcyder]

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.

You appear to be using some strange American interpretation of the term "class warfare". In fact, class warfare is precisely the mass of the population fighting against the elite tyrants, i.e. workers against capitalists in Marxist terms.

People in the US get confused and think that everyone is now a capitalist (billionaire-in-waiting) and that therefore class warfare is just smaller capitalists against bigger capitalists. In fact, it is only the very rich who have power. Owning a mortgaged house and having a few shares to pay a pension doesn't make you one of the powerful elite.

Re:Fee Fees Hurt?

[Big Hairy Ian]

Is there any compensation for "serious emotional distress"? Because I have a phobia of fluffy kittens :)

Re:Fee Fees Hurt?

[Harlequin80]

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.

Re:Fee Fees Hurt?

[tehcyder]

The claim is that it won't create "a right to be offended", because the term "Serious emotional distress" is supposed to exclude mere outrage. Nor embarrassment, anxiety or worry. (See paragraph 10 on page 3 of the ministry of Justice's briefing on the bill).

Courts in the US award damages for serious emotional distress (or whatever you call it) over and above actual physical damages, so it can't be that difficult to work out the difference..

Re:Fee Fees Hurt?

[TapeCutter]

The funniest part was when the only (ex) senator to propose putting political sites on the current blocklist found his own anti-abortion websites were the only political sites on a "leaked" draft list.

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?

[ihtoit]

It's about as meaningful a term as the one they use in the UK public family law as a threshold to steal children - "risk of future emotional harm". If you can define "serious emotional distress" in clear legal terms, you should also be capable of defining "risk of future emotional harm" - something no legal entity in the UK has EVER managed to do.

Re:Fee Fees Hurt?

[ihtoit]

funny that, by definition you don't own the mortgaged house, the bank does. You're only occupying it and by extension, looking after it for the bank.

Re:Fee Fees Hurt?

[meta-monkey]

And thank God for that. As much as people bitch about the US, and the Supreme Court...they are fucking serious about free speech. You really, really, really have to fuck up to have the government punish you for something you said. God bless America.

Re:Fee Fees Hurt?

[meta-monkey]

"There's class warfare, all right, but it's my class, the rich class, that's making war, and we're winning." - Warren Buffett

Re:Fee Fees Hurt?

[ihtoit]

if freedom of speech is the right, then the obligation to accept the consequences of that speech has to go with it.

Which, to any right-minded individual, should make perfect sense.

Re: Fee Fees Hurt?

[myowntrueself]

Define how vpn is being blocked.

An ISP would be giving up its carrier status if it interfere with user traffic.

This is NZ not the USA

Re:Fee Fees Hurt?

[myowntrueself]

The USA's famous "right" to free speech only applies to dialog between you and the government.

Other citizens don't have to put up with your bullshit and your right to free speech isn't being violated in the slightest when they tell you to STFU.

And the government can tell you 'Murcans to exercise your 'free speech' in special fenced areas.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...

Re:Fee Fees Hurt?

[xdor]

All this changed when they gave the Obama the authority to enter into the TPP last week.

NZ law is now US law: and US law is now NZ law

Re:Fee Fees Hurt?

[pipingguy]

"I'm just wondering how the hell they plan to enforce it."

I don't think enforcement is the goal, comrade. The goal is to start you thinking along the lines of self-censorship.

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.

Re:Fee Fees Hurt?

[lgw]

Oh? Familiar with safe spaces? "Triggering"? Colleges in the US are fraught with students claiming emotional distress over a speaker whose politics don't match the groupthink exactly. (This really happens). I can only hope this problem is contained to the US, but we've raised a large group of people so fragile that ideas contrary to their beliefs are considered emotional distress.

But what does it matter if the government is dishonest? Give a government any tool which allows them to jail someone for speech, and it can be twisted far enough to fit the government's needs.

Re:Fee Fees Hurt?

[lgw]

There have been 3 Slashdot stories about specific cases that I remember. (This isn't about "anti-child porn laws", but about very specific "block this list of sites at all ISPs" laws). I remember the UK for sure, the other 2 my memory fades on the details: it had become "oh, this shit again" by then. Give a crooked politician a tool like a blocklist and it will be abused.

Anarchy scares people

WTF is wrong with people these days? Any comments about "maybe a tiny bit less overwhelming government power" are always met with this "but anarchy is bad!" BS. Neither extreme is good, OK? "Regulate nothing" and "regulate everything" are both dystopian ideas.

Re: Fee Fees Hurt?

[Bing Tsher E]

Bread and Circuses, to keep the masses from fighting.

Feeling upset and angry? Don't go to a protest rally. Here, download some music and movies. You're such a rebel!

Re:Fee Fees Hurt?

[drinkypoo]

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.

Re:Fee Fees Hurt?

[davidwr]

At a state level it is common law

Well, except Louisiana - its legal code is based on Napoleonic law. That's a whole 'nuther ball of wax.

and at the federal level it is civil law.

I assume you mean "as distinct from common law" as opposed to the more commonly-used (pardon the pun) "as distinct from criminal law".

Re:Fee Fees Hurt?

[ShanghaiBill]

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.

Re:Fee Fees Hurt?

[KGIII]

You absolutely do have that right. You have that right but are not free to say anything you want without repercussions. So, yes. That is what I said but with much more detail. There have, as far as I know, limits to our "free speech." I, for one, do not always like the speech but I would never dream of silencing someone. One of my concerns is that these things should already have been illegal (the variances determined by their people) and not require a new law because of "internet."

Re:Fee Fees Hurt?

[KGIII]

Well yeah. It has been this way for as long as I can think of and further back than that. I was born so long ago that the Sun had a price tag on it still. It was illegal even then. The amusing part is that someone opted to down-mod my post when the replies have, I have not read all replies yet, paraphrased what I said or added information and clarification to it. I do not care about the moderation but I find it sad that someone was unable to understand it. I had thought my writing fairly clear.

Anyhow, yes. Speech has consequences and you do have a right to free speech or even a freedom of speech. The latter is superfluous and it is only constrained by physically removing that right. Even a gag order does not prevent free speech - it just means that there are consequences for violating it. A gag order removes one's right to speak on that particular subject as you seemingly know.

Re:Fee Fees Hurt?

[ArylAkamov]

That sounds nice, like your justice system actually works. If something like this were introduced into U.S. law, shit would be hitting the fan about now.

Re:Fee Fees Hurt?

[tirefire]

In fact, class warfare is precisely the mass of the population fighting against the elite tyrants, i.e. workers against capitalists in Marxist terms.

That's always the official story. In practice, an environment of constant fear and distrust is created as the instigators use class warfare to set the population against itself, throwing the country into chaos, giving the instigators more favorable odds for their coup against the existing elite.

You appear to be using some strange American interpretation of the term "class warfare".

No, he's just saying it like it is. Here's a shot in the dark: maybe he knows about the post-war "liberation" of China, where [Peasant A], who owned one cooking pot, would accuse his neighbor [Peasant B], who owned TWO cooking pots ("oh, such a DECADENT CAPITALIST!!"), of being a "landlord". The "landlord" was then tortured and executed. If [Peasant B] got wind of it and chose to lamb it, any family he left behind would be tortured and executed instead. Communist Russia went through a similar phase with their "kulaks". In either country, it was a fantastic way for one person to sic a lynch mob on anyone they wanted, and show their class warfare cred in the process.

Re:Fee Fees Hurt?

[Stan92057]

See im all for you being allowed to be a dick what im not for is your ability to hide who you are to be a dick. If ya have the balls to say something than ya should have the balls to be man enough to not hide who you are.

Re:Fee Fees Hurt?

[cynicist]

The problem with enforcing the "spirit" of the law is that it changes depending on personal interpretation. Ambiguity is a license to arbitrarily punish your enemies in the legal sphere.

Re:Fee Fees Hurt?

[Anonymous Coward]

Unless you're a black man, in which case the cops can just shoot you and get away with it. This makes all legal rights meaningless.

Re:Fee Fees Hurt?

[penguinoid]

Indeed, who is going to tell what constitutes "serious emotional distress"?

DMCA notices come to mind.

Re:Fee Fees Hurt?

[epyT-R]

I have criticized specific women (as well as men) for bad arguments and bias. That is not bigotry.

Re:Fee Fees Hurt?

[ihtoit]

no, a gag order imposes a penalty on certain speech. You can't stop me from saying what I want, not with a piece of paper and not even at the muzzle of a gun. I'll say what I damn well please.

Just be sure to pull the trigger.

Re:Fee Fees Hurt?

[ihtoit]

(I think we just sort of agreed, I'm not sure. Tired.)

Re:Fee Fees Hurt?

[AK Marc]

Lawmakers aren't omniscient. They can't conceive of every possible misinterpretation from law-trolls looking to pick a fight. They try, but they do miss. So, do you enforce the law like the obvious missing comma is there, or do you effectively nullify a law through judicial activism? Apparently you are on the side of judicial activism.

Re:Fee Fees Hurt?

[beastofburdon]

I'm damn sure on the side of judicial activism. If the laws can be interpreted by their "spirit" then there are no laws and you can be imprisoned for any or no reason. That my friend is tyranny in its purest form, devoid of the good or evil connotations often assigned to it.

Tell me, how can you obey the law when the law changes according to the arresting officer's and the judge's opinion of what the spirit of the law is?
You can't!
It's just like the bullshit we are currently dealing with in the U.S. where the text of some laws is secret and the rulings of the FISA court are too.

Re:Fee Fees Hurt?

[AK Marc]

Tell me, how can you obey the law when the law changes according to the arresting officer's and the judge's opinion of what the spirit of the law is?

Then you need to move from a Common Law country to a Civil Law country.

Re:Fee Fees Hurt?

[beastofburdon]

Sadly that option is only available to the wealthy.

Re:Fee Fees Hurt?

[AK Marc]

No, it's not. I, and millions like me, have moved countries. It's easier than "they" make you think. If everyone knew how easy it was, there would be much better global mobility.

The most expensive thing in the process (more than all other costs combined) was the health screening because the health care in the US is expensive (and poor quality), though I hear it's getting better.

Poor trolls

[HighFlyer]

What will Tom, Bert & William do now? Will they be deported as garden decoration? Poor stone trolls...

You Owe Me An Apology

[magusxxx]

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

Re:You Owe Me An Apology

[TheTurtlesMoves]

NZ is not the US. Just because you have money, doesn't mean jack when it comes to "suing" people.

Re:You Owe Me An Apology

[Anonymous Coward]

Here in New Zealand, people with more money are often not given very high social standing. High social standing is usually reserved for sports stars, especially rugby players.

If someone has been able to accumulate a bit of money, they are viewed by many (most?) of the populace as being evil masters who got their wealth only by exploiting the masses.

Slippery slope

[GeekWithAKnife]

While I welcome the spirit of the legislation I am concerned about the enforcement.

You will be quick to note the rather dubious "serious emotional distress" and "causing harm by posting digital communication." -who determines this?

While I can absolutely understand making sure no racist, sexist etc posts are discouraged if not eliminated what's this "religious intolerance" nonsense? -If enough people claimed to believe in someone, no matter how absurd it can officially be recognised as religion. Why does this deserve special rights?

If you think about it, when someone says something and another person is offended it's not clear cut who has it wrong. Did the person intend to offend? was it that you disagreed or are of a gentler nature? did he speak in anger or while intoxicated? -factors that need consideration.

I really hope this bill will be implemented in a measured manner. I can see any number of groups pursuing lawsuits due to some of these items.

Re:Slippery slope

[viperidaenz]

A judge determines it by assessing the evidence.

Re:Slippery slope

[Harlequin80]

As I posted above the bar for where something is deemed to be an issue will be determined by case law. Given NZ is a common law country they will build precedents around what is ok and what is not. The tricky period is now when legislation has been passed but there are not enough cases tried to know where things will sit.

Re:Slippery slope

[Anonymous Coward]

While I can absolutely understand making sure no racist, sexist etc posts are discouraged

You hope no racist/etc posts are discouraged?

I hope they are, but passing laws restricting free speech isn't the way to do so. Let bigots and idiots have their speech. Let the consequences follow. People need to learn and understand that they have no right to not be offended by something. People also need to learn and understand that disagreeing or disliking something is *not* offence, even though they like to get outraged about things.

Society should be aiming to toughen people up a lot. There's far too many precious over-entitled idiots out there who aim to get offended by the most trivial of things.

Re:Slippery slope

[serviscope_minor]

You will be quick to note the rather dubious "serious emotional distress" and "causing harm by posting digital communication." -who determines this?

I guess it willbe determined in a similar way to how different grades of physical assult are determines.

Re:Slippery slope

[jbolden]

what's this "religious intolerance" nonsense? -If enough people claimed to believe in someone, no matter how absurd it can officially be recognised as religion. Why does this deserve special rights?

One can question beliefs in ways that are respectful, humane and polite. There is no need for "i disagree and here is why" to involve rudeness. Religious beliefs are deeply held beliefs that people are going to have a lot of trouble questioning. For example in this post you immediately held a belief that racial discrimination is bad, probably based on a religious belief (and I'm including atheism as a religion) in the equality of all people. Now I agree with you on that. Were someone to question that rudely you'd call them a racist, which is precisely what you said was OK.

Did the person intend to offend?

In harassment situations yes, they intend to offend and obviously so.

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:Slippery slope

[narcc]

You might have a case. You're clearly suffering from serious emotional distress. The only question, of course, is if the bogeymen causing you such harm are real or imaginary.

Re:Slippery slope

[jbolden]

None (atheist, agnostic, no religion don't know, don't care) acts like a religion in the USA demographically. Atheism acts like a denomination. within that. It constitutes a set of beliefs concerning the cause, nature, and purpose of the universe.

I don't see any particular reason not to treat it like a religion. It walks like a duck and quacks.

Re:Slippery slope

[jbolden]

No, atheism does NOT constitute a set of beliefs

Of course it does. Atheism implies belief in: empiricism, naturalism, evolution and humanism. Which is not to say all atheists believe all those things fully, the same way that not all Christians believe in the virgin birth. But it is to say that there is a nexus of beliefs around atheism.

Big Bang Theory is not atheism.

No there are many religious people who believing in the big bang. What the big bang is though is a key component in an evolutionary theology.
__

I don't think you know what the definition of a religion is.

Re:Slippery slope

[GeekWithAKnife]

OK. I find the belief in unfounded god/s is one of the leading causes of murder, rape and mutilation etc throughout history. It has also repeatedly held humanity's progress back and tend to be non-democratic and unreasonable in nature having no place in schools or modern life in general.

I argue that if there was a god he/she/it would not need any believers nor would he need them to be offended to defend his/her/its name or honour.

Furthermore as the very nature of a supreme being/entity is knowledgeable to humans should such a being or entity actually exist it would be impossible for humans to know the will of such a deity and is best left for the deity to express, preferably in written form. (sure you can say some holy book but I'm pretty sure an all powerful deity does not need people to make editing mistakes in written form and then claim divine origins.

If I believe, wholly and deeply in divine pink unicorns a legislation demanding that others respect such an unfounded belief would be an insult.

The very questioning of belief is repeatedly a cause to offend some. After all, the only unforgivable sin is to deny the holy spirit, should such a spirit exist in the unlikely event that spirits become factual.

It is high time that much like homoeopathy things which have absolutely no basis are removed from legal protections etc. Besides, if god doesn't like it, he'll just change it back right?

Re:Slippery slope

[0123456]

Concern troll is concerned.

Re:Slippery slope

[jbolden]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...

a-theism meaning non theism is not the same as atheism the cultural construct. When people talk of atheism they mean the cultural construct, atheism as it exists not atheism as it might exist in theory.

Re:Slippery slope

[jbolden]

I find your first 3 paragraphs uninformed and full of fallacies. But they were expressed politely and inoffensively. Proving that it is quite possible to do.

___

Paragraph 4 isn't true, you don't believe in pink unicorns. The pink unicorn was always an atheist analogy.

Paragraph 5 I'm not clear what that even means. There is a fallacy of equivocation regarding the meaning of "denying the holy spirit". blasphemia cannot be translated the way you are using it.

It is high time that much like homoeopathy things which have absolutely no basis are removed from legal protections etc.

That's the argument for a state church. The state determines truth, those beliefs in accord with the state religion are encouraged and those out of accord are persecuted. The debate is about whether NZ's law damages freedom. You are arguing against freedom. Which is an understandable position but it is one that the guy who wrote the first 3 paragraphs should critique.

Re:Slippery slope

[Smauler]

Atheism implies belief in: empiricism, naturalism, evolution and humanism.

It might do to you, that may be why you consider it a religion. It doesn't to me. Just because people who don't believe in a god are more likely to believe some other things than religious people, does not make it a religion. If short people were more likely than others to believe some things, does that make being short a religion?

No one can know that there's no god absolutely. That being said, no one can know anything absolutely (with the possible exception of cogito ergo sum, but that is problematic too). The brain in a jar argument isn't very useful.

All that being said, I believe there is no god. However, this is an entirely pointless question, in my opinion, and doesn't affect my life in any way whatsoever. What affects my life is my lack of belief in some of the more popular gods, and that's what makes me an atheist.

Back on topic, I'm from the UK, and we have a law outlawing incitement to religious hatred. Now I do hate some religions (Scientology, fundamental Christianity, some Islamic sects), and I would encourage others to hate them too.

See what I did there? I just broke the law. Chances of me getting charged with a crime = 0%. Yeah, well I didn't really :

29JProtection of freedom of expression Nothing in this Part shall be read or given effect in a way which prohibits or restricts discussion, criticism or expressions of antipathy, dislike, ridicule, insult or abuse of particular religions or the beliefs or practices of their adherents, or of any other belief system or the beliefs or practices of its adherents, or proselytising or urging adherents of a different religion or belief system to cease practising their religion or belief system.

It specifically allows abuse of religions. The incitement to religious hatred law is actually actually pretty specific : "A person who uses threatening words or behaviour, or displays any written material which is threatening, is guilty of an offence if he intends thereby to stir up religious hatred."

Key word : "Threatening". It seems pretty sensible, but the trouble with this, and a whole host of laws that Labour introduced under Tony Blair, is that it was already illegal. They also criminalised setting off nuclear devices in towns and cities. Because that wasn't illegal before, right?

Re: Slippery slope

[Bing Tsher E]

So you are saying: "Pay no attention to those imbeciles over there claiming to be atheists. They are false and wrong. I espouse the One True Atheism."

Re: Slippery slope

[Bing Tsher E]

Ah, so you accept a definition of the practice as 'gaslighting'.

That's very cynical of you. But all that matters to you is the end result. There is no room for discussion. You have it all figured out and there is no reason to engage your opponents. You need only impose your view. It's good we were able to come to an understanding.

Re:Slippery slope

[KGIII]

I think I may help shed some light on this. I am not sure how good it will be but I will try.

Some say that atheists do not believe in a god. Others say that atheists believe there is no god. In both it requires a belief, believing that there is no god. The verbiage just brings that aspect to the forefront. So, if one actively believes there is no god then that is a belief system ergo a religion by some definitions.

I offer no opinion other than the above. What you believe is entirely up to you as is how you opt to identify yourself.

Re:Slippery slope

[jbolden]

Reread what I wrote regarding cultural construct.

Re:Slippery slope

[jbolden]

A reversal of no true scott would be a definition that applied to actually Scottsmen while yours doesn't apply to the existent people. I'm not sure how that is meant to be an argument against my position.

Re:Slippery slope

[KGIII]

You should read what I wrote. I indicated a belief in neither and just shared what I have read many other people offer as the excuse as to why it is a religion. They state it that you are believing in no god. It is a fine argument for their side but I much prefer to be honest and call it my belief system and be grateful my belief system changes with strong new evidence.

Re:Slippery slope

[causality]

I'll tell you up-front that I do believe in a God and that this God is the uncaused cause that set everything else into motion. As this is a personal belief, it won't have much to do with my response to you, but I thought I'd mention it to add some perspective. By "personal belief", I mean "go form your own". I for one cannot stand the mindless group-think experience of most churches I've visited and the "security" of being surrounded by the like-minded is worthless. I think Big Questions like "is there a God?" are things you have to decide for yourself.

OK. I find the belief in unfounded god/s is one of the leading causes of murder, rape and mutilation etc throughout history. It has also repeatedly held humanity's progress back and tend to be non-democratic and unreasonable in nature having no place in schools or modern life in general.

The massive mainstream religions have become like a corrupt government. They served a purpose and provided people something they felt they needed, but various control freaks long ago realized they can also be used to control people. Like Jim Marrs says, religion and the monetary system are the two major methods of controlling people. This doesn't mean that currency of some kind has no legitimate use (barter has lots of problems) and it likewise doesn't mean that religion can only control people.

I mean, I've read the Bible. I'm not an expert, but I can say that I'm well familiar with it, specifically the words of Jesus Christ. When I read the words attributed to him, I see exhortations to be humble, to love your neighbor as you love yourself, the importance of forgiveness, turn the other cheek, etc. I've read multiple translations and they all agree on this point. I just can't find any teaching of Jesus that can be construed as "murder, rape, torture, etc are all perfectly acceptable". Those calling themselves Christian and claiming to have read the same Bible should have observed the same.

I argue that if there was a god he/she/it would not need any believers nor would he need them to be offended to defend his/her/its name or honour.

The actual concern for this comes from the idea that the Creator wants to have a relationship with the created, rather than just watch us like an aquarium or snow globe. It's also believed that people have an inherent longing for such a connection and don't have a full life without it.

The perversion used to control people is this idea that you must behave a certain way and become a certain typecast sort of person or else you're faulty in some serious way. It's just a way to enforce conformity, not in a "top-down" way but in such a way that the conformists themselves would feel ashamed to appear otherwise.

I've also argued to more than one religious person, that I doubt a term like "god dammit" would actually offend any serious God-concept. It seems like a childish position to me, to envision God as some sort of scolding parent. I know human beings who wouldn't actually be offended by terms they dislike; why should Almighty God be more petty than they? It just makes no sense to me.

If I believe, wholly and deeply in divine pink unicorns a legislation demanding that others respect such an unfounded belief would be an insult.

If you also had multiple witnesses providing written accounts of this, and said unicorns performed what appeared to be miracles in front of large crowds, and many people found this convincing and credible, well then you might be onto something.

The very questioning of belief is repeatedly a cause to offend some. After all, the only unforgivable sin is to deny the holy spirit, should such a spirit exist in the unlikely event that spirits become factual.

My own concept of God includes a desire for us to question everything worthwhile, and this certainly qualifies. Einstein said "the most incomprehensible thing about the universe is that it

Re:Slippery slope

[GeekWithAKnife]

You may have considered it polite and non-offensive but not everyone will, which is the point.

Replace unicorns with snake oil. The points stands. Belief lacking any factual basis that is protected by law may as well be the celestial teapot, pink unicorns or anything else without factual basis.

The point being is that in this case religion itself allows no flexibility. If you deny the holy spirit and evidently I do I cannot be forgiven ergo, according to this baseless belief I am a "sinner". Such a biased belief based on nothing at all should not have legal protection.
You see to deny the holy spirit is apparently a big deal and that offends people. Imagine how ridiculous it would be to deny the holy snake oil. Just as baseless, just as valid.

My argument is for sense. Legislation such as this has too much room for error. Queue "I'm offended" lawsuits.

Re: Slippery slope

[david_thornley]

More like "Those imbeciles over there are a small number of atheists, so don't generalize from them alone." Similar to "Those imbeciles over there are a small number of Christians, so don't generalize from them alone."

Lawyers do all these things

[Anonymous Coward]

> "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.'

Lawyers are infamous for using dirty tactics in 'negotiation, mediation or persuasion' in 'digital communications' that cause 'serious emotional distress.' It's their job to make the other side so miserable and stressed out they beg them to stop and agree to their terms. Taunt. Harass. Threaten. They're not supposed to, but they do anyway. Will the bill cover them? http://www.civiljustice.co.nz/... http://netk.net.au/whitton/ocl... http://www.smh.com.au/comment/... http://angiemedia.com/2009/01/... http://www.dri.org/DRI/course-... http://www.hg.org/article.asp?...

> 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).

Ha ha. of course not!!!

Re:Lawyers do all these things

[johanw]

I'm used to offensive lawyers, got even complains from Kendrick Moxon in the 90's (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kendrick_Moxon) when anti-scientology websites were the issue of some lawsuits here. I survived that, so I'm affraid there won't be much lawyers who can intimidate me anymore. :-)

Re:Lawyers do all these things

[Karmashock]

Actually the lawyers are your best defense in this matter. The people you need to be worried about are the politicians and the judges.

The Lawyers always get a bad rap for using laws the politicians put into law or for winning a case that the JUDGE rules on.

Is it the lawyer's fault if he makes a silly argument and the judge actually buys it? Who's job is it again to not let crap get through the courts? Not the lawyers. That's on the judges. Trust me... world is full of a lot of lazy stupid judges. Ask yourself this... how do you tell a competent lawyer from an incompetent one? You can tell. But then ask yourself this... how do you tell an incompetent judge from a competent one? They're very very very poorly policed for incompetence and when they are incompetent and everyone knows it... they're really hard to get rid of. Nine times out of ten if something stupid happens in a court room... look to the man responsible for the court... which is the judge.

No one ever blames the judges though. Always the lawyers.

Trust me. If you get hit by some stupid law like this... your best friend in the world... is your lawyer... You want him slick and slimy as possible so he can grease you up and get you off. You want him to be the most merciless soulless sociopathic sophist you can get your hands on... with the single proviso that he is your merciless soulless sociopathic sophist.... and not just some dude that is going to knife you for your wallet and then steal the shoes of your corpse. Which can happen too... so... try to avoid that. But if you can manage that one... yep... You want someone that is smart and will fight like hell for you.

causing serious emotional distress?

[Black Parrot]

Will the evening news be illegal? Wishing someone a happy 30th birthday? Mentioning that Christmas is over 'til next year?

Though, apparently it's legal if you do it in analog.

Re:causing serious emotional distress?

[mwvdlee]

I find your lack of faith disturbing... so I will sue you for emotional distress.

Re:causing serious emotional distress?

[johanw]

If you can't even do a force choke to bring the disbeliever back in line he has every reason to lack faith.

Re:causing serious emotional distress?

[Atrox666]

Can I get the force of law behind my imaginary friend?

religious intolerance

[mwvdlee]

Does "religious intolerance" include anything promoting religion?
Because that is quite insulting to me as an atheïst.

Or does this protection only apply to people who believe in deities?
Do these people somehow deserve more protection?
And if so, why?

Re:religious intolerance

[Harlequin80]

Religious intolerance is already defined in other pieces of legislation and it would not stop you telling someone you thought they were brain dead for believing in a god. And they have every right to say you should convert to their faith.

Religious intolerance, rather, is when a group (e.g., a society, religious group, non-religious group) specifically refuses to tolerate practices, persons or beliefs on religious grounds (i.e., intolerance in practice). So this would be where you are attacking someone for exercising the practices of their faith. ie attacking someone for observing Ramadan.

Your signature says you live in a world of gray so I assume you can see the difference between those two things.

Re:religious intolerance

[jklovanc]

Does "religious intolerance" include anything promoting religion?

Short answer, no. Longer answer. Promoting does nothing against other religions while intolerance does. Inviting people to service to hear a sermon is promoting. Not allowing a mosque to be built because you don't like the religion is intolerance. Sorry but promoting a religion is not an insult.

Or does this protection only apply to people who believe in deities?

I doubt it. I bet religions like Buddhism, Taoism, Shintoism would qualify.

Re:religious intolerance

[jbolden]

Religious intolerance and promoting a religion are not the same thing.

Let's do this for atheist.

X posts anti-atheism arguments based on Hume and presents apologetics for Christianity over atheism. He debates atheism strongly but politely. X is promoting religion.

Y posts false and inflammatory things against the Humanist society in his town. After publishing these things he publishes people's home addresses. He encourages harassment of their children at school. People feel harassed and quit the humanist society. Y is inciting.

Re:religious intolerance

[Anonymous Coward]

What about refusing to 'tolerate' somebody committing the atrocity of halal or kosher slaughter? What about refusing to 'tolerate' the atrocity that is circumcision of baby boys? What about refusing to 'tolerate' kapporot and shechitah? Do you even know what they are?

Re:religious intolerance

[Harlequin80]

Had no idea what kapporot or shechitah was so I had to look them up. From what I read Shechitah is just another term for Kosher slaughtering and im going to guess your issue is with killing a chicken rather than someone giving away coins in Kapporot.

Therefore I'm assuming you are arguing that slaughter of animals for food via kosher means is materially worse that other methods. And materially worse enough that you think that attacking those people who follow that practice is rightly justifiable?

As for the circumcision of boys I actually agree with you. To me it is the genital mutilation of a minor and I believe it should be banned. One of my relatives is a neonatal nurse and she nearly had a baby die because of a botched circumcision. The rabbi hid that he had nicked an artery and kept just mopping up the blood.

Title adjustment

[Tablizer]

I'm not a "troll", I'm an Agitation Engineer.
   

Re:Title adjustment

[pslytely psycho]

Do I mod this Funny, Insightful, or Troll?
They all seem to fit so well...
Well done, you win the internet today.

Re:Trolls?

[Man On Pink Corner]

And when this comes to America, I'll be heading out

To where? Mars?

This idiocy seems to spread like a virus. It will cover the Earth, faster than sane people can stop it.

Fools getting the government they deserve

[leereyno]

Congratulations Kiwi's, you've created a regime under which all speech is now subject to state approval.

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:Fools getting the government they deserve

[jez9999]

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.

Sorry, but you're the fucking idiot who thinks that censoring some speech isn't inevitably going to lead to censoring of other speech, or for that matter, that your WORDS should get you into criminal trouble because it hurts somebody else's feels. You guys wanna do away with free speech? Then you're idiots, and I'll fight it where I live for as long as I live and breathe.

Oh, and you can't so me for calling you a fucking idiot, because I don't live in New Zealand.

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:Religion is a choice!

[jbolden]

Religion has a strong serial correlation between parent / child like most inherited cultural traits. There is no evidence it acts like a choice. Stop letting your biases cause you to ignore evidence because it disagrees with your ideology.

Re:Religion is a choice!

[jez9999]

Stop letting your biases cause you to ignore evidence because it disagrees with your ideology. ...is what you need to be telling religious people.

Re:Religion is a choice!

[jbolden]

The irony was intentional.

Re:Religion is a choice!

[drinkypoo]

Why does religion get lumped in with race and sex.

Because it was in fact the whole point of this action.

Re:Religion is a choice!

[argStyopa]

Some might claim that's true of sexual preference as well, so do we lump homophobia with racism or religious-intolerance?

FWIW I know language is mutable and maybe I'm just behind the curve, but does "troll" now officially mean "anyone who says anything I don't like on the internet"?

It used to be a far more subtle definition, of someone who would post something (occasionally hurtful yes, but frequently the better trolls would use a sort of straw-man sympathic post) *specifically* to draw out a reaction, thus the use of the word 'trolling' as in the fishing technique of not sitting in one place but instead dragging your line behind a moving boat, hoping to provoke an aggressive fish to react just out of the motion-action of your lure.

Re:Religion is a choice!

[olterman]

Choice as is poverty. However, it's easier to get rich than choose your own religion, in some cases.

Re:Religion is a choice!

[Solandri]

Ultimately, any moral structure you choose to enforce is a choice. Including the one you've apparently chosen where inherent properties are given higher standing than chosen properties. Strictly from a physical (inherent) standpoint, there was nothing wrong with Hitler's belief that certain members of the human race needed to be exterminated. Evolution is after all about survival of the fittest, and if those peoples could not survive his extermination attempt, then obviously they were not fit enough for their environment. Others chose to believe differently - that those people had an inherent right to exist regardless of the circumstances they were born into. And they believed in that choice strongly enough to go to war over it even though it resulted in over 50 million deaths

So it's self-contradictory to argue that things based on a choice deserve less protection than things that are inherent. Such a moral position is in itself a choice, and by your definition cannot be defended if e.g. someone inherently physically stronger than everyone else decides to go around smashing in the heads of people who believe as you do (regardless of your race or gender).

Religious intolerance is included because historically it has been one of the main reasons people have been persecuted and discriminated against. Heck, people are being executed for it right now in Syria and Iraq. Probably a lot more than because of their race or gender. Even atheism is a choice (essentially, a religion). The scientific method cannot prove a negative, so it cannot prove that a god does not exist. So to go from agnosticism (uncertainty about whether a diety exists) to atheism (certainty that no deity exists) requires a leap of faith - a choice.

If you boil it down, I think you'll agree that the key principle worth defending is the right to self determination - the freedom to make the choices you want to make. Such choices are worth protecting up to the point where they begin to interfere with other people's freedom to make their own choices. It's all about choices.

Re:Religion is a choice!

[sudon't]

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.

First off, I don't see why that's any reason to discriminate. Why should the choices we make, as long as we're not interfering with others, be a reason to mistreat us?
The reason religion, in particular, is "lumped in there" is that because arguments over irrational beliefs cannot be settled by reason or evidence, and so, tend to lead to violence. We had to enshrine this in law because, as a nation of immigrants with various religious beliefs, we couldn't afford to have everyone killing each other all the time. Other immigrant nations adopted this idea, and eventually, other, more enlightened nations, began to see what a sensible policy this was, even if not all their citizens have.

Re:Religion is a choice!

[davidwr]

Why does religion get lumped in with race and sex.

I realize this thread is about New Zealand, not the USA, but in the USA, religion, or more accurately, the right to practice a religion as one saw fit as long as it didn't infringe on others' rights, long-predated equal rights based on skin color ("race"), national origin, gender, or sexuality. Freedom of religion was enshrined into our Constitution almost from the beginning, right alongside freedom of speech, freedom of the press, freedom of assembly, and some other basic rights (it's in the Bill of Rights, which was added on very shortly after the Constitution was written).

Discrimination because of race and national origin was nominally outlawed by changes to the constitution in the mid-/late-19th-century after our country's Civil War. Those same amendments played roles in courts ruling that other minority groups were entitled to "equal protection under the laws" in the nearly 150 years since then, including the recent Supreme Court ruling regarding same-sex marriage.

The US Constitution still does not provide an explicit ban on gender discrimination (the "equal rights amendment" was proposed in the 1970s but the proposal's built-in clock expired before it was adopted). However, given Supreme Court decisions over the last few decades, it's probably safe to say that, at least with respect to the behavior of governments and of companies and institutions that do business with the public, discrimination based on gender is likely to get you hauled into court and you are likely to lose unless you have a very good reason (a female sex offender suing a drug company conducting a study on the effects of testosterone-blocking agents on only male sex offenders, for example, would likely have her case tossed as being frivolous).

Re:Religion is a choice!

[Any Web Loco]

Religion is a choice

This is one of those "true in theory but not in practice" things. If you were born into (for example) an Ultra Orthodox Jewish community, brought up in it, never got to see anything outside of it (etc), then your religious beliefs aren't really choices you made. If you're never even been aware of the alternatives, how's it a choice?

Re:Religion is a choice!

[penguinoid]

You mean, a troll might do something *specifically* to draw out a reaction, like suggesting laws against harassment shouldn't protect personal choices/preferences in general nor religion in particular?

Well thats Peter Jacksons next film screwed

[Viol8]

Guess he'll have to film it in Australia. They've certainly got enough hairy footed types to fill in for hobbits.

No, it ISN'T free speech.

[Anonymous Coward]

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)

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:No, it ISN'T free speech.

[Megol]

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.

Re:No, it ISN'T free speech.

[fnj]

Paragraph two of the United States Constitution states, in part, that: "We hold these truths to be self evident: that all men are created equal, that all men are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights; among them life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness..."

Maybe you're having an off day, so I'll be gentle. That quote is not from the Constitution. It's from the Declaration of Independence. There's a bit of difference. The Constitution is the foundation of the law of the land. The Declaration of Independence is nothing more than a statement ("declaration"). It has no force of law.

As such, the Constitution is a lot more specific. For example, the First Amendment: "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances." It doesn't go into a lot of carrying on about where those rights come from. It just guarantees them.

Re:No, it ISN'T free speech.

[KGIII]

Your post is mostly gibberish but to reply...

A company can restrict your ability to use their property as your platform for speech. The government can also do so, we call them "free speech zones."

You should also read my post. I make it quite clear that this is applicable to the United States and that other nations can and have different laws and that some include no right to free speech at all. This is not a complicated subject but your incorrect ranting is cute. What is also amusing is that someone actually noticed your capitalization and punctuation and thought you were saying something pertinent. They absolutely could not have read it before moderating it or, alternatively, they just are inept.

Re:No, it ISN'T free speech.

[sumdumass]

And there's a problem with your concept too. You do not know god doesn't exist. All you know is that you have not been convinced that one or more God's exist or existed at any time. And no, saying if god exists do X to prove it does not mean one doesn't exist when X doesn't happen any more than i wouldn't exist if you demanded i took a dump on your door step while you sleep as proof i exist and i didn't.

The worse part. In your fervor to proclaim a scientific untruth (science cannot prove a god doesn't exist, only that one is not needed ), you miss the entire point of the clause. However you were created, a common inborn desire of man is to strive for life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness which is not limited to a select few born into the right families or royalties , or bestowed upon by some king or whatever for the success or pursuit in those goals.

All through human history, this is a desire of the human race. Choices and ideas on how to achieve it varies, but it has been present. People naturally desire it. The fact that they were created (in however that came about ) means this exist.

Re:No, it ISN'T free speech.

[ihtoit]

shit. I feel silly. Yes. Point stands though, the text is there somewhere - and the Declaration of Independence *does* have Force of Law, otherwise you'd be standing and saluting the Queen instead of the Star Spangled Banner at the beginning of your sporting events.

Re:So...

[johanw]

No, in this case I stand for what I say.

BTW, it looks like your sarcasm detector is defective.

Re:So no discussion of RACE and IQ then...

[dave420]

You tiny-minded dumb fuck. I sure as hell wouldn't move to the backwards society which spewed you forth onto the world, as clearly it's broken.

Doesn't Go Far Enough

[pubwvj]

"The bill covers posts that are racist, sexist, or show religious intolerance, along with hassling people over disability or sexual orientation."

That doesn't go far enough. Some trolls harass over other things. Trolling and stalking need to be clamped down on.

Re:Doesn't Go Far Enough

[WaffleMonster]

That doesn't go far enough. Some trolls harass over other things. Trolling and stalking need to be clamped down on.

Isn't it funny how everyone wants to use legal systems to have their personal way with others. I don't like this so I support ban on x... I think this so I want y outlawed.

For example at this moment I think it would be swell if there was a law that banned people like yourself from the Internet. This is necessary to protect the network from damage caused by people who would rather see speech censored than have to man up enough to tolerate things they don't like.

Bullcrap!

[TapeCutter]

Cheap, reliable, VPN's are everywhere, ya wanker!

I use a VPN daily, as do many people I know here in Melbourne. Malcolm Turnbull (the federal communications minister and first heir to the Aussie throne) recently stood on the steps of parliament and strongly recommended their use as a privacy tool, his words were broadcast and dissected ad-nauseam all over the national MSM for days on end. I'm in my 50's, and sure, our current far-right government is the worst pack of amoral bullshitters I have ever seen in parliament but the "anti-piracy" legislation does not ban VPN's and was never intended to do so.

Pro tip: Might want to get someone knowledgeable to check that the "blockage" you are experiencing is not due to a malware infection.

God bless the First Amendment

[Karmashock]

Do you want to live in a world where you can't call some fuckwit a cocktoddler?

I don't.

'MERICA! :P
https://www.youtube.com/watch?...

Re:Religion is a choice! Just as homosexuality.

[narcc]

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.

The AC is right. 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.

Treasurer for sale

[TapeCutter]

It's actually relatively rare for Aussie politicians to sue people for what they say, Sir Humphrey would call it a "very courageous decision". There was however the recent case of our Federal treasurer who sued a major newspaper for printing the headline "Treasurer for sale". He won a partial victory, the article and headline together were deemed ok because a "reasonable person" would not conclude he was corrupt if they read it in toto. However, using the same logic, promotional posters that just displayed the headline were deemed defamatory. It was also shown via internal emails that the person responsible for the headline had a personal grudge against the treasurer, ie: intent to defame was established.

Disclaimer: Personally I dislike the federal treasurer on multiple levels and think he is guilty of many misleading headlines and public statements that have caused significant financial harm to millions over the last couple of years, but I consider myself a reasonable man and agree with the court's reasonable decision.

Re:Troll use to be

[moderators_are_w*nke]

Yep, here are the old school definitions:

http://www.catb.org/jargon/htm...

It's a shame that the term for something annoying but ultimately harmless (and on occasion quite witty) has been hijacked as a term for unacceptable abusive behaviour.

Free Speech Zone: Act 1

[tepples]

Speaker's corner in Hyde Park has been the icon for that tradition since the 1850's.

Speaker's Corner isn't anything like the out-of-sight, out-of-mind free speech zones in the United States, is it?

Re:Free Speech Zone: Act 1

[ihtoit]

yes. There's about enough space in front of the podium for half a dozen people to stand. I say, if you're going to make noise in London there are better places to do it, such as right under Nelson's Column in Trafalgar Square (I've done this, I managed to stop traffic and attract the attention of three or four stations' worth of Metropolitan Police officers). You can pack a fair few thousand people in there.

the real target

[ihtoit]

political dissenters.

Let's face it, no Government likes it when informed people share their information (that more often than not pulls back the curtain on the blatant criminality perpetrated by Agents of State), backed up with evidence, when all the State has is spin, distraction and empty rhetoric, which very quickly devolves into threats of imprisonment and other deprivations and superinjunctions - which, like Fight Club, I'm not allowed to talk about...

Re:Hey, "Leonidas", Name & Address. 2nd Amendm

[Karmashock]

Okay troll...

333 Olympic Drive Santa Monica, CA 90401

do your worst.

Wrong! Wrong! Wrong!

[xdor]

The TPP enforces the laws of any given country in another country under the partnership.

While everyone in the US was diverted by the Charleston church massacre and the misdirected angst over the Confederate flag: the Senate gave the US president authority to enter into this agreement.

If you live in Australia, New Zealand, Malaysia, Chile, Japan, the US or Canada: welcome to the pacific version of the EU!

Re:Wrong! Wrong! Wrong!

[fnj]

There is an itsy bitsy problem with making that claim; namely, the Constitution is the foundation of the law of the land, and it cannot be altered or overridden short of a well defined process of amendment. So the TPP can say what it fucking wants, but the Constitution trumps it. Yes, I am fully aware that the clowns in the Supreme Court have abandoned the Constitution, but they have no enforcement arm. When they go rogue, unless the Executive Branch goes rogue with them, they can blow in the wind. Now, the Supremes are insulated from accountability, but the executive is not. The White House is due for a change in 18 months. If there are enough patriots among the people, there will be a correction. If not, well, the people do not deserve to have their Republic continue.

Re:No, not the police's address. YOURS.

[Karmashock]

James Keane

Come and get me.

TL;DR Trolls?

[afgun]

What's next, Orcs? The oppression of Middle Earth continues!

Re:Religion is a choice! Just as homosexuality.

[WaffleMonster]

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

I *believe* this is pure psychobabble nonsense much like responding to "just be yourself" with "I can't not be myself".

You can make a conscious decision to seek evidence which changes or invalidates your current beliefs. People change and or ditch religions beliefs all the time.

Am I the only one who considers this odd?

[Opportunist]

We get a new barrage of online anti-bullying laws. While at the same time, nobody gives half a shit about real life bullying.

Ya know what I'm talking about. The kind where REAL people REALLY hurt you and your feelings. Starts in school, doesn't even end in the workplace. And? Zilch. Nada.

Could it be that the ones making the laws ARE the offline bullies? And just unable to retaliate otherwise when their targets fight back with weapons that require more brain cells to employ?

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.

Re:And address, moronic coward.

[Karmashock]

You asked for my address and my name... now you're asking for all these other things... I don't understand.

Are you literally retarded?

You want my life's story? You want to know what my first pet was and what I named it? My first pet by a goldfish... and I named it "fish"... there you go. More information... you really are a hilarious panty sniffer.

Press my used underwear to your face and breath it it in you funny little pervert. :D

Re:Religion is a choice! Just as homosexuality.

[narcc]

Well, the challenge I offered is still on the table: Give it a try.

Can you manage it? By an act of will, can you truly believe that a blue ghost is stealing socks from the laundry? Can you simply stop believing in, say, the existence of field mice?

Re:Religion is a choice! Just as homosexuality.

[narcc]

Any belief is subject to change

Sure, but neither one of us is suggesting that beliefs cannot change.

Re:And you haven't GIVEN your address.

[Karmashock]

And? You wanted an address and a name. Do what you wanted to do... first, I suggest you start calling them at all hours to send harassing phone calls.

Then you might try ordering some pizzas to their address.

And possibly you can send them menacing pictures of the outside of the building showing them that you're there and WATCHING.

And then when you've gotten tired with that, you can file a false police report about someone shooting someone else on the premises to get a SWAT team to raid the facility.

And of course... I'm a coward if I don't make it easy for you to do that to me?

You're a fucking idiot.

You call me a coward for not letting you SWAT me? I'm not a coward. I'm just not stupid... unlike you.

And your presumption that I'm some how a coward because I won't doxx myself? Who do you think you're fooling with that you pathetic waste oxygen?

You asked for an address and a name. I suggest you troll away. The name by the way is the name of retired police chief. You can go after him too if you want. :D

What a fucking retard. :-D

*giggles*

I'm a old forum warrior, shithead. You're nothing I haven't seen before. I grind the bones of little morons like you and sprinkle them on my toast.

There is nothing you can say that will offend me. There is nothing you can that will get to me.
And there is no ploy your feeble intelligence could come up with that I haven't seen a million times years ago.

You're nothing. And the funniest thing you've done is post as AC... which is Anonymous Coward... and call ME the coward even then I actually log in.

I have an excellent karma rating by the way. What's yours? Zero? Hmmm... yet another way I'm better than you.

Suck it long and suck it hard... the prize is well worth the effort... I promise.

Re:And you haven't GIVEN your address.

[Karmashock]

You equate my lack of care with a lack of emotional control? Okay, trolololol. :D

Re:And you haven't GIVEN your address.

[Karmashock]

I haven't been angry on the internet since 2002, chump. ;)

A friend of mine f'ed me over and I was upset for about a week about that... I don't remember when I was mad before that... it doesn't happen often and no shitstain like yourself could possibly make me mad.

Anger is a response to fear and fear requires some sense of danger or threat from you that actually threatens me. ... you can't do anything to me... so I can't feel threatened by you. And as I can't be threatened... I don't feel angry.

I'm always amused by you little numskulls thinking you can gain rhetorical advantage by claiming you got someone else mad without understanding what that would even mean.

The reason getting someone mad is a rhetorical win for you is because you scared someone or caused them to lose control.

You can't honestly believe you scare me can you? And as to a loss of control... I suppose you're suggesting that I would only use profanity to insult someone if I were out of control? 'fraid not, stupid. I'm that way when I wake up in the morning and I'm that way when I go to bed. That's my default position and anyone that's been in a discussion with me as long as you have should have realized that by now.

You are stupid... so... I guess that's why you weren't able to connect those dots.

FYI... do connect the dots... it makes the a picture of a ducky. :)

Trolls No Longer Welcome In New Zealand

[AMITAYUS]

Secret police bill wrapped up in righteous BS. Don't like what you see? Don't look. Forget about ever getting a reversal on that. Time to start the political prudent party to watch over lest bad taste arise. Kitty pictures for all I say! Muuuuuhahahaha.

Re:And you haven't GIVEN your address.

[Karmashock]

The "you're angry" comment again... You're really just so completely stupid that you don't understand that is almost literally impossible?

I would have to be THREATENED by you to be angry. How could you possibly threaten me? And absent that... absent some sort of fear on my part... how could I possibly be angry?

Anger is product of fear... retard. I would have to "FEAR" you to be "ANGRY".

Wow you're stupid.

I don't get angry with you morons... I just get a bit frustrated because you're just that stupid. It's like playing whack-o-mole with idiots.

I don't know how many of you there are... I suspect fewer than it seems. your whole AC thing you've got going makes it impossible to tell if I'm talking to two douchebags or five.

Re:Religion is a choice! Just as homosexuality.

[sudon't]

If it's a choice, could you choose to believe again? If not, how do we know your choice isn't an illusion?

I couldn't, but people do. Not sure what you mean in the second sentence. Do you mean legitimate? Here's the thing - many people are very good at fooling themselves. You have to be, to be a believer.
Regardless, I don't see how choice factors in on whether people should face discrimination. But, I'm one of those people who believe that people should be free to live as they like, as long as they're not interfering in that same right in others. Crazy, huh?