Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Trolls No Longer Welcome In New Zealand

Posted by samzenpus on from the sticks-and-stones dept.

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).

45 of 270 comments (clear)

  1. Fee Fees Hurt? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Insightful

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

    1. Re:Fee Fees Hurt? by gyepi · · Score: 4, Interesting

      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.
    2. Re:Fee Fees Hurt? by ArmoredDragon · · Score: 3, Interesting

      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.

    3. Re:Fee Fees Hurt? by baker_tony · · Score: 2

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

    4. Re:Fee Fees Hurt? by Harlequin80 · · Score: 4, Informative

      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.

    5. Re:Fee Fees Hurt? by epyT-R · · Score: 2, Insightful

      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.

    6. Re:Fee Fees Hurt? by AmiMoJo · · Score: 5, Informative

      This sort of subjective law is actually quite common in Common Law countries, and seems to work reasonably well in practice. There are typically certain requirements, such as having to show actual harm took place (psychologist's report etc.) which means mere offence isn't enough. The prosecution would have to show, for example, that someone deliberately set out to harm a vulnerable individual.

      There have been cases were people with existing mental illnesses have been driven to suicide. The people harassing them knew what they were doing. Society has an interest in protecting people from that kind of thing, because it's not a free speech issue. Harassment isn't free speech, it isn't necessary to allow it in order to allow full freedom to express unpopular ideas.

      --
      const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
      SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
    7. Re: Fee Fees Hurt? by TheTurtlesMoves · · Score: 3, Interesting

      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!
    8. Re:Fee Fees Hurt? by aaaaaaargh! · · Score: 3, Insightful

      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.

    9. Re:Fee Fees Hurt? by Harlequin80 · · Score: 4, Interesting

      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.

    10. Re:Fee Fees Hurt? by Joce640k · · Score: 2

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

      --
      No sig today...
    11. Re:Fee Fees Hurt? by Joce640k · · Score: 2

      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.

      --
      No sig today...
    12. Re:Fee Fees Hurt? by jbolden · · Score: 4, Insightful

      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.

    13. Re:Fee Fees Hurt? by jbolden · · Score: 2

      The USA is also a common law country.

    14. Re:Fee Fees Hurt? by Karmashock · · Score: 2, Insightful

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

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

      --
      I've decided to stop wasting my time responding to AC trolls/sockpuppets... so if you want a response from me... login.
    15. Re:Fee Fees Hurt? by TapeCutter · · Score: 3, Informative

      Free (political) speech is the traditional interpretation of relevant common law that dates back almost 1000yrs, it is not specifically codified in most commonwealth countries but I'm pretty sure the people who wrote the bill of rights were well aware of English common law and similar traditions in France. Speaker's corner in Hyde Park has been the icon for that tradition since the 1850's. Under the traditional interpretation you have a right to broadcast your opinion and you can poke fun at me via parody, but you don't have the right to deliberately misinform the public in order to defame me, nor do you have the right to follow me around and shout at me. For example, in most commonwealth countries the Phelps family would be classified as a "serial pest" and would quite likely spend some time in the lock up for harassment. It has nothing to do with the vile things they say, it's all about the time, place, and manner, they choose to say it.

      Commonwealth countries also do not elect unqualified judges from the general population, they are appointed on merit and experience, not popularity.

      --
      And did you exchange a walk on part in the war for a lead role in a cage? - Pink Floyd.
    16. Re:Fee Fees Hurt? by tehcyder · · Score: 2

      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.

      --
      To have a right to do a thing is not at all the same as to be right in doing it
    17. Re:Fee Fees Hurt? by Harlequin80 · · Score: 4, Interesting

      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.

    18. Re:Fee Fees Hurt? by tehcyder · · Score: 2

      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..

      --
      To have a right to do a thing is not at all the same as to be right in doing it
    19. Re:Fee Fees Hurt? by TapeCutter · · Score: 2

      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.

      --
      And did you exchange a walk on part in the war for a lead role in a cage? - Pink Floyd.
    20. Re:Fee Fees Hurt? by hey! · · Score: 4, Insightful

      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.

      --
      Post may contain irony: discontinue use if experiencing mood swings, nausea or elevated blood pressure.
    21. Re:Fee Fees Hurt? by myowntrueself · · Score: 2

      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/...

      --
      In the free world the media isn't government run; the government is media run.
    22. Re:Fee Fees Hurt? by davydagger · · Score: 3, Insightful
      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.

    23. Re:Fee Fees Hurt? by lgw · · Score: 2

      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.

      --
      Socialism: a lie told by totalitarians and believed by fools.
    24. Re:Fee Fees Hurt? by lgw · · Score: 2

      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.

      --
      Socialism: a lie told by totalitarians and believed by fools.
    25. Re:Fee Fees Hurt? by drinkypoo · · Score: 3, Interesting

      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.'"
    26. Re:Fee Fees Hurt? by ShanghaiBill · · Score: 3, Interesting

      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.

    27. Re:Fee Fees Hurt? by tirefire · · Score: 2

      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.

  2. You Owe Me An Apology by magusxxx · · Score: 3, Insightful

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

    --
    Care killed the cat, but satisfaction brought it back.
  3. Slippery slope by GeekWithAKnife · · Score: 2


    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.

    --
    A 'singular oddity' is an event that cannot be explained and only happens when you are alone.
    1. Re:Slippery slope by Harlequin80 · · Score: 2

      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.

    2. Re:Slippery slope by Intrepid+imaginaut · · Score: 2, Insightful

      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.

  4. causing serious emotional distress? by Black+Parrot · · Score: 2

    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.

    --
    Sheesh, evil *and* a jerk. -- Jade
    1. Re:causing serious emotional distress? by mwvdlee · · Score: 4, Funny

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

      --
      Slashdot social media options: AIM, ICQ, Yahoo, Jabber and Mobile Text. Why no MySpace?
  5. Re:Trolls? by Man+On+Pink+Corner · · Score: 2

    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.

  6. Religion is a choice! by Skylinux · · Score: 3, Insightful

    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.

    --
    Everyone who buys Wild Hunt will receive 16 specially prepared DLCs absolutely for free, regardless of platform.
    1. Re:Religion is a choice! by drinkypoo · · Score: 2

      Why does religion get lumped in with race and sex.

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

      --
      "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
    2. Re:Religion is a choice! by argStyopa · · Score: 2

      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.

      --
      -Styopa
  7. Re:Fools getting the government they deserve by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

    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.

  8. No, it ISN'T free speech. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Informative

    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)

    1. Re:No, it ISN'T free speech. by sumdumass · · Score: 3, Insightful

      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.

    2. Re:No, it ISN'T free speech. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

      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.

    3. Re:No, it ISN'T free speech. by Megol · · Score: 2, Interesting

      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.

  9. Bullcrap! by TapeCutter · · Score: 2

    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.

    --
    And did you exchange a walk on part in the war for a lead role in a cage? - Pink Floyd.
  10. Re:Religion is a choice! Just as homosexuality. by sudon't · · Score: 2, Insightful

    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.

    --
    -- sudon't

    Air-ride Equipped