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?

[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?

[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?

[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?

[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?

[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?

[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?

[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?

[hey!]

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

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

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

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

Re:Fee Fees Hurt?

[davydagger]

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

They don't

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

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?

[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.

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:causing serious emotional distress?

[mwvdlee]

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

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.

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.