
New Zealand is making cyber bullying a specific crime - anu_gupta
http://www.bbc.co.uk/newsbeat/article/33409220/new-zealand-is-making-trolling-illegal
======
x0054
This is a law that will never help a single person, and eventually will be
used and abused against people the state finds undesirable. Really sad to see
freedom of speech being killed off yet again in an idiotic pursuit of an
illusion of safety.

~~~
onion2k
_This is a law that will never help a single person, and eventually will be
used and abused against people the state finds undesirable._

Most countries having laws that limit freedom in favour of protecting people
from abuse. They're used frequently, and they _do_ work (at least to punish if
not deter).

A law being abused by the state is a problem though; hopefully the New Zealand
government will word theirs to protect against that happening.

 _Really sad to see freedom of speech being killed off yet again in an idiotic
pursuit of an illusion of safety._

Freedom of speech is not absolute. It never really has been. You've never been
free (in the specific sense of 'free' meaning 'a right protected by law') to
lie about other people, to be abuse other people, to be obscene, to threaten
other people, to copy other people's speech. There's a long list of case law
about people who want to be free to say things and have been denied that right
-
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_free_speech_exce...](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_free_speech_exceptions)

Saying, printing, or posting online things that are designed to abuse another
individual is not, and should not be, protected speech.

~~~
chroma
In your examples, you readily equivocate civil and criminal law. The
punishments and standards of evidence differ quite a bit. You also reference
US cases that most free speech advocates (including the ACLU) disagree with.
Reams could be written teasing out details, but I'll skip over that and get to
the core of my disagreement.

I really dislike framing in terms of "freedom of speech." Many of the first
lions of free speech: John Milton, Thomas Paine, and John Stuart Mill... they
framed it in terms of freedom of _hearing_. By silencing someone, you limit
potential audiences and _their right_ to _hear_. In this original framing, the
rights of these listeners are crucial, not just those of the speaker. Yes,
Sturgeon's law applies. Most speech is crap. But let readers and listeners
decide for themselves what they should read or hear. Don't give a government
body that power.

And honestly, is there any government body you would be willing to grant that
power? The power of deciding what you could read or hear? Considering their
typical level of competence, can you honestly say you'd be happy with your
government being a filter for your senses? Would you be content letting them
throw people in jail for nothing more than text typed on a keyboard? Maybe
it's my American upbringing, but the concept seems _absurd_ to me. Sticks and
stones can break my bones, but... words can be a felony? What the hell?

Edit: I'm not sure how, but many readers seem to have misconstrued my comment
as condoning threats. That is not the case. Everyone here agrees that threats
to one's well-being are criminal and wrong. The law we are discussing
restricts the exchange of ideas, albeit potentially crudely-formed ones. Let's
not attack straw men.

~~~
vacri
> _Sticks and stones can break my bones, but... words can be a felony?_

I guess when people live in such fear from online bullying that they have to
_move house_ because of the rape and death threats they're receiving, it's a
little more than "text typed on a keyboard".

It's not your American upbringing, it's your framing of the problem.

~~~
chroma
It really should go without saying, but rape and death threats are crimes.
Nobody is saying they aren't.

New Zealand's new law isn't about criminalizing such (already illegal)
threats. It's about making non-threats crimes. Under this law, half of the
comments in this thread could be interpreted as illegal. Hell, I can't think
of a comedian that _couldn 't_ be charged under this law. That's what I'm up-
in-arms about.

~~~
AdeptusAquinas
That's very hyperbolic. The law is about threats and abuse - and is actually
fairly specific as to what that entails. No one in this thread - or any
comedian for that matter - is trying to incite a specific reader to take his
or her life. If they were then boom - if this is in NZ there is now a law that
will get you locked up.

~~~
chroma
> No one in this thread - or any comedian for that matter - is trying to
> incite a specific reader to take his or her life.

"If you have something to say, here's what you do: You write it down on a
piece of paper, you go out in the lobby, and then you go home and you kill
yourself."

— Louis C.K. [1]

I and many others found Louis CK's performance hilarious, but what's stopping
him from being locked up the next time he performs in New Zealand? It's only
fame and prosecutorial discretion that stands between him and a prison
sentence.

1\. [http://www.rollingstone.com/movies/news/how-louis-c-k-
became...](http://www.rollingstone.com/movies/news/how-louis-c-k-became-the-
darkest-funniest-comedian-in-america-20111212)

~~~
AdeptusAquinas
What's stopping him from being locked up is that he is not attacking a
specific individual, as the act clearly specifies he would need to for it to
be a crime. He isn't pulling aside a member of his audience, then using email
or social media in an attempt to get that person to kill themselves. That's
what the law is there to prevent.

~~~
vacri
That and the fact that New Zealanders aren't fucking idiots. The law states
'reasonable person', not 'if the slightest offense is taken'. It's clearly
part of an act, it's clearly not directed at anyone, and it's clearly not
meant to be taken seriously.

~~~
chroma
While I don't want to disparage all New Zealanders, I'm quite certain there
are enough idiotic, overbearing, or corrupt officials that this law will be
abused. And I'd like to stake money on this claim.

I am willing to bet 1 bitcoin (≈265 USD), at even odds, that within a year we
will see an article on the front page of HN showing abuses of the Harmful
Digital Communications Bill. Specific abuses may include: corporate
censorship, overreactions to jokes, or people jailed for offhand drunk-
posting. There are a myriad of possibilities.

If this happens, you pay me one bitcoin. If this does not happen, I pay you
one bitcoin. If you're interested in this bet (or terms similar to it), let me
know and I would be happy to discuss details.

I should warn you: The history of these sorts of laws is pretty bad. For
example, Malicious Communications Act[1] has been used in all kinds of
ridiculous cases. People have been arrested for posting images as pedestrian
as a burning poppy.[2]

1\.
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Malicious_Communications_Act_1...](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Malicious_Communications_Act_1988)

2\. [http://www.theguardian.com/uk/2012/nov/12/kent-man-
arrested-...](http://www.theguardian.com/uk/2012/nov/12/kent-man-arrested-
burning-poppy)

~~~
vacri
As other people have noted, Kiwiland is known for more lenient sentencing and
doesn't generally throw people in jail over trivial things. It still suffers
from the vicissitudes of any legal system - run by humans, they're not perfect
- but jail time for 'drunk posting'?

Similarly, I don't like your mechanism for success - a mere article on the
front page of HN. For $265, what's to stop you writing an article and
submitting it yourself? Your profile page clearly indicates your current
handle as being intentionally anonymous so comments can't be traced back to
you personally. And if your problem is that the law will be abused, why do you
have no qualms in taking _any_ article as being written in good faith, no
matter the author?

And, even if you can provide a single counter-example, well, welcome to law.
Sometimes false positives happen. That people get falsely convicted of rape or
murder laws don't mean that rape or murder laws are an affront to freedom and
must be disposed of. Laws are sledgehammers, not scalpels, and coming up with
single counter-examples is worthless.

I'm also not personally interested in BTC. It's a farce - it's fun to play
with for some and that's cool, but it's never going to be a functional
currency. As I don't really find it fun (friends are fans), I've never
bothered to get set up properly with it.

To sum up: no, I don't take your bet.

Edit: Writing your own article would actually be worth $530, since that's the
delta between paying out and collecting winnings.

------
dspillett
I don't think making it a specific crime is the way forward long term. As the
article states, in most countries everything is already covered by existing
legislation (and society's general view of common decency but that doesn't
necessarily help in a court).

The problem is one of implementation. How do you gather proof/evidence, how do
you prove _intent_ beyond reasonable doubt, and how do you support the victims
during and after. A fair amount of the existing problem is similar to bullying
in other area: the victims being scared to speak out either just through fear
of the perpetrators or through the thought that nothing can and/or will be
done. And other key problem is people in law enforcement (from the cops on the
street all the way up to the judges and legislators) and people in society's
support structures (parents, teachers, councillors, and so forth) not
understanding: being out of touch with the technology, or facets of modern
culture (cyber-bullying is a lot more common in the young and many who where
young 20 or more years ago, and I'm including myself there, don't quite
understand those people), or often both.

Sometimes the more specific a crime the easier it is for a good legal team (or
just a clever arsehole) to find loopholes that allow them to get away with
things that are effectively the same thing but are not covered by the exact
wording, so great care needs to be taken in drafting the law.

Having said that: making it a specific crime might be a very useful stop-gap
measure though. It at least tells both the victims and those on the other side
that the situation is being taken seriously, brings the matter to sharper
focus for the implementers/enforcers of the law so they'll see the need to
fill the knowledge/experience gap, and to an extent brings the issue to
increased public attention (hopefully with similar effect where needed).

~~~
AdeptusAquinas
While existing legislation covers the same issues, I think a problem is the
courts and general public treat the same crime in a different context (i.e.
over the phone or out in the street) as more serious / real, which leaves the
cyber-variant harder to deal with effectively or consistently.

By explicitly singling it out with its own definition and punishments, this
will no doubt it makes things easier for the police, courts and victims I
think.

Assuming it doesn't get abused by our idiot politicians anyway (I'm from NZ -
looking at you Colin Craig).

------
jordanthoms
One of the few Members of Parliament opposed to this speaking against the
bill:
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-5XZ7OZCzBY](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-5XZ7OZCzBY)

"We must do something, this bill is indeed something, therefore we must pass
this bill"

There are already sufficient protections in common law against harmful speech
and passing vague law that only applies to online speech just makes us look
like idiots.

------
trengrj
Background from an overseas New Zealander:

New Zealand's centre right National party under John Key has made a lot of
concerning moves regarding civil liberties, censorship, and the internet. A
couple examples:

Expanding the GCSB (NZ's NSA) to allow domestic spying
[http://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/news/article.cfm?c_id=1&objecti...](http://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/news/article.cfm?c_id=1&objectid=11112152)

Kim Dotcom's shakedown
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kim_Dotcom#Arrest_and_extradit...](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kim_Dotcom#Arrest_and_extradition_proceedings)

I view this bill as another attempt to control speech online with "cyber
bullying" being just a useful phrase to push this sort of legislation
through..

~~~
jordanthoms
It's highly disingenuous to say that without also noting that this bill passed
116 to 5, and the most vocal critic came from the right side of the house. I
oppose the bill as well, but we shouldn't pretend that National is solely at
fault for it.

~~~
trengrj
Agreed but that is my point. National has diverged completely from its roots
as a classical liberal party.

~~~
elemenopy
National has never really been a classical liberal party. Muldoon ran some of
the most interventionist economic policy in NZ history, and Bolger and Shipley
passed the Resource Management Act. In recent times only ACT has really been
classically liberal, but even that is a bit shaky.

------
grovulent
So - according to the bill, anyone with a complaint has to send it to a
delegated agency that will be responsible for assessing each complaint. It is
there to screen for trivial cases, etc.

If there is cause, they can then send it off to a court which will then
determine what is to happen. The court can refer it back to the agency for
more attempts at mediation etc... before making a ruling.

These are all reasonable checks on balances from the point of view of ensuring
that this is not abused to censor speech etc. The courts are even instructed
to take account of the "intent" of the communicator. So it's not like the
nutso feminist-left - with their "intent is not magic" belief - are driving
this bill.

So from this point of view the bill is actually quite reasonable...

Of course, from another point of view - i.e. when you consider the sheer
number of assholes on the internet, it remains completely insane. The stated
intent of the bill is to provide timely redress to victims. Lol - when hell
freezes over.

My prediction - The delegated agency is going to be woefully under-funded. As
far as I can see in the legislation - it is actually toothless. Any
enforcement has to come from the courts. So people will learn to ignore the
agency... feed-backing more cases onto the courts which see their time getting
taken up because people can't get along on the internet. edit: the problem
being that people WILL submit frivolous cases. Lots of them.

Victims won't by-and-large get the timely redress promised - except for a
couple of high profile cases that make it into the media. And this non-result
will come at great expense.

But thanks for being the test case NZ... nothing like empirical confirmation
of any point of view.

~~~
te_chris
'nutso feminist-left'. Nice one.

~~~
beedogs
Is there a better term for SJWs?

------
polemic
You can read the Act in full here:

[http://www.legislation.govt.nz/act/public/2015/0063/latest/w...](http://www.legislation.govt.nz/act/public/2015/0063/latest/whole.html#DLM5711810)

------
higherpurpose
> Be indecent or obscene.

Really? They're going to send people to prison for "being obscene" on the
Internet?

~~~
bcraven
I suspect that the obscenity has to be directly targeted at someone, in which
case it would be considered abusive.

------
jshap70
I really don't see this as being just another charge tacked onto the end after
something terrible happens because of cyber bullying. The biggest issues with
cyber bullying are with kids and teenagers, not trolls. I doubt kids have the
foresight to care, and even then they're also (rightfully) treated differently
by court systems, meaning that they know there are much lessened punishments
even if it is brought up.

------
beedogs
Wow. WOW. What a fucking terrible law, written for the Internet by people who
have never actually _used_ the Internet.

------
cxromos
I've been bullied on the playground (not just by Xcode). Most of the physical
bullying I've forgot. That sad there were some rally vicious assholes (later
on probably ended up on a war crimes bench) that did psychological damage.
What kids do to kids in these days is beyond belief. Younger sister having
someone savvy in like most of the people here to give her advice not to take
it seriously is not as common as we tend to bias here. Psychological bullying
in gangs is worse than being beaten on the playground. Let's not get paranoid.
This is New Zealand we speak about :) Do your homework.

