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?

[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?

[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?

[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:causing serious emotional distress?

[mwvdlee]

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