Hard News by Russell Brown

Read Post

Hard News: Media3: Where harm might fall

117 Responses

First ←Older Page 1 2 3 4 5 Newer→ Last

  • Russell Brown, in reply to Rich of Observationz,

    Does Trevor Mallard have an expectation of confidence in relation to the right-wing talking point he posted on Facebook, then deleted?

    Extremely unlikely. The LawComm does at least emphasise that political speech requires a high degree of protection.

    Auckland • Since Nov 2006 • 22850 posts Report

  • Keir Leslie,

    Just pointing to sections of the Crimes Act that cover behaviour and saying that because there’s an existing criminal/civil remedy is not, I think, particularly fatal to the Law Commission’s reasoning. (Even pointing to convictions.)

    The argument they are making is that prosecutions are currently possible but too hard, I think.

    Since Jul 2008 • 1452 posts Report

  • Sacha, in reply to Bart Janssen,

    Perhaps the solution is looking at other ways to teach social behaviour in addition to merely legislating punishment for bad behaviour (whatever that ends up being).

    Which can also happen online.

    Ak • Since May 2008 • 19745 posts Report

  • Lilith __,

    We have the First Rule of PAS. It mostly works. :-)

    Dunedin • Since Jul 2010 • 3895 posts Report

  • Rich of Observationz,

    One point is that if you look further afield, the US not only doesn't have these sort of measures, but can't, unless they can get a 2/3 majority in Congress and 3/4 of the states to carve out the 1st Amendment.

    Seems not to be that much of a problem there, I think people have just resigned themselves to the Internet being full of lunacy, calumny and vilification.

    Back in Wellington • Since Nov 2006 • 5550 posts Report

  • Thomas Beagle, in reply to Rich of Observationz,

    Rich - from the Law Commissions report:

    "And in a number of American states there are statutes which make it an offence to send electronic communications without legitimate purpose which would cause a reasonable person to suffer substantial emotional distress." Footnote 159.

    Just saying!

    New Zealand • Since Nov 2007 • 50 posts Report

  • Kyle Matthews,

    As far as I’m aware, nowhere in any NZ law does it say “except on the Internet”.

    I do wonder if there is a legitimate role for 'nasty shit people posted about me on an overseas web site'. A tribunal might help smooth jurisdictional issues because it doesn't go down a criminal path immediately?

    Since Nov 2006 • 6243 posts Report

  • Russell Brown, in reply to Thomas Beagle,

    “And in a number of American states there are statutes which make it an offence to send electronic communications without legitimate purpose which would cause a reasonable person to suffer substantial emotional distress.” Footnote 159.

    And that doesn't include the crazy shit going on around teens and sexting, which is landing kids with child pornography charges. The US is not an example to follow, at all.

    Auckland • Since Nov 2006 • 22850 posts Report

  • Craig Ranapia, in reply to Russell Brown,

    Extremely unlikely. The LawComm does at least emphasise that political speech requires a high degree of protection.

    The irony for me being that politicians can stand up in the House and make allegations that would be actionably defamatory in any other forum, and for which the defamed party has precisely zero recourse for redress. Just saying…

    The US is not an example to follow, at all.

    Especially when we're talking about jurisdictions where public urination can land you on a public sex offenders register, with all the consequences that flow from that.

    North Shore, Auckland • Since Nov 2006 • 12370 posts Report

  • Craig Ranapia, in reply to Bart Janssen,

    So somehow they know good behaviour in the real world but don’t know good behaviour online.

    I'm not really sure that's even true -- there has been some rather lolsob arguments going on in geekdom around sexism both online (the truly gastly on-line harassment of Anita Sarkassian) and in meat space (the fallout from sexual harassment at Readercon). Seems to me that people willing to be lady-hating, harassment enabling assbags on line aren't any better in real life.

    North Shore, Auckland • Since Nov 2006 • 12370 posts Report

  • Keir Leslie,

    I have to say, I have difficulty with the idea that District Court judges exercising powers they already mostly have the right to exercise are a threat to free speech on the internet.

    Since Jul 2008 • 1452 posts Report

  • Russell Brown, in reply to Kyle Matthews,

    I do wonder if there is a legitimate role for ‘nasty shit people posted about me on an overseas web site’. A tribunal might help smooth jurisdictional issues because it doesn’t go down a criminal path immediately?

    Not sure. I do know that Google, for all it tries not to, frequently gets caught up in defamation disputes.

    What Google's search ranking will effectively do is prioritise official information and widely-trusted sites. So even if you can't remove every scrap of false or damaging information, the correction or finding of fact will come up higher in search results. I think this is an underrated point.

    Auckland • Since Nov 2006 • 22850 posts Report

  • Rich of Observationz,

    This list of swear words, ranked by objective survey conducted by the BBC, might be of use to any future lawyers representing a miscreant up against the PRoper Internet Communication Kontrol Service for 'grossly offensive messaging'.

    Cut out and keep.

    Back in Wellington • Since Nov 2006 • 5550 posts Report

  • Stephen Judd,

    What if the crackpots that Scott Hamilton and Matthew Dentith deal with so well on their blogs start claiming the emotional distress of contradiction and mockery justify penalties?

    On another note, the first rule of PAS is all very well, but as has been pointed out on other occasions, sometimes it is necessary to be disagreeable – to be a dick relative to community norms. I think we can all imagine people whom we want to contradict vigorously and obnoxiously without fear of legal sanction.

    Wellington • Since Nov 2006 • 3122 posts Report

  • Russell Brown, in reply to Stephen Judd,

    On another note, the first rule of PAS is all very well, but as has been pointed out on other occasions, sometimes it is necessary to be disagreeable – to be a dick relative to community norms.

    Not very often, to be honest. I think it's more often the case that people convince themselves its necessary, or feel the need to give licence to their own actions. You need to have a very low level of respect for others in the room for it to be "necessary" to be a dick.

    I think we can all imagine people whom we want to contradict vigorously and obnoxiously without fear of legal sanction.

    I think the Commission has over-reached, but I do not honestly think that general web hurly-burly would make it all the way up through mediation to a Tribunal order, especially in the context of a political discussion.

    Auckland • Since Nov 2006 • 22850 posts Report

  • Russell Brown, in reply to Stephen Judd,

    What if the crackpots that Scott Hamilton and Matthew Dentith deal with so well on their blogs start claiming the emotional distress of contradiction and mockery justify penalties?

    If it got to the level of the Tribunal, my hope and expectation would be that it would swiftly be dispatched, the way that such complaints are by existing media regulators – although, yes, the “emotional distress” criterion is cause for uncertainty, and the lack of a requirement for input from the allegedly offending party is untenable. The chief peril would likely be a lot of people’s time being wasted.

    Auckland • Since Nov 2006 • 22850 posts Report

  • Stephen Judd, in reply to Russell Brown,

    You need to have a very low level of respect for others in the room for it to be “necessary” to be a dick.

    Absolutely. But it's going to happen. Especially in other "rooms". And in fact I think that context, or social consensus, is what defines being a dick. Probably people who break local social norms are mostly unjustified, but occasionally, they will be righteous.

    Wellington • Since Nov 2006 • 3122 posts Report

  • Stephen Judd, in reply to Russell Brown,

    If it got to the level of the Tribunal, my hope and expectation would be that it would swiftly be dispatched,

    Given what happened when Kerry Bolton complained to the BSA about Scott Hamilton's comments on National Radio, I'm not entirely sanguine about that.

    Wellington • Since Nov 2006 • 3122 posts Report

  • Morgan Nichol,

    Where do we stop once we decide we need to protect people from ever being upset? And who do we decide to protect or ignore? How does a law differentiate between protecting the very powerful (who don't need it) from the very vulnerable (who might need it)?

    Do we want laws to protect our prime minister from mockery? Because look at, for instance, Thailand's law protecting their king from insult. It's abusive and draconian (and very old fashioned).

    (One of many examples: American gets 2.5 years for insulting Thai monarchy - CNN.)

    Do people who are religious really have a right to never be offended because of people disrespecting their religion? The news just yesterday of French tourists in Sri Lanka being sentenced to 6 months hard labour (suspended, thankfully) for 'wounding or insulting the religious feelings of any class of persons' by taking inappropriate photos with a buddha statue"? Is that what we want? Because some people probably would claim it was grossly offensive.

    (Cite: French tourists guilty in Sri Lanka over Buddha photos - BBC News.)

    Ridiculous.

    Making it easier for some people to get protection from specific targeted ongoing harassment seems reasonable. And I've heard many times that our defamation laws are slow, unwieldy, and very expensive. But along with trying to solve those problems seems to have been bundled the ludicrous idea that people shouldn't ever be upset.

    If I want to mock a religion for some reason I'll do it. And as it turns out, I sometimes do have cause to do that. I don't do it in an email, DM, or txt message. I don't target specific people with the intent of hurting them. I'm very much an opt-in ranter, which to me seems like a really important distinction - and not one I'm seeing mentioned by the law commission (but then, really, tldr).

    The classic XKCD joke - "someone's wrong on the internet" appears to be morphing into "someone's wrong on the internet, better call the police".

    What a mad rant this turned into, gosh I hope I didn't upset anyone with my grossly offensive overuse of parentheses or awkward slipperyslopism.

    Auckland CBD • Since Nov 2006 • 314 posts Report

  • Russell Brown, in reply to Morgan Nichol,

    Do we want laws to protect our prime minister from mockery? Because look at, for instance, Thailand’s law protecting their king from insult. It’s abusive and draconian (and very old fashioned).

    No. But that’s what the Commission’s paper is very explicitly not proposing. It says that political speech requires the highest degree of protection.

    Making it easier for some people to get protection from specific targeted ongoing harassment seems reasonable. And I’ve heard many times that our defamation laws are slow, unwieldy, and very expensive. But along with trying to solve those problems seems to have been bundled the ludicrous idea that people shouldn’t ever be upset.

    Which I don't think is what the Commission means, but it has certainly left itself open to that interpretation.

    Auckland • Since Nov 2006 • 22850 posts Report

  • Morgan Nichol, in reply to Russell Brown,

    It says that political speech requires the highest degree of protection.

    That's just how it starts. Then pretty soon there's the running and the screaming, the police water canons, and the gulags.

    Which I don't think is what the Commission means, but it has certainly left itself open to that interpretation.

    It's quite a frightening prospect. Hopefully they change their bloody tunes long before this becomes anything like a law.

    We need a goddamn constitution.

    Auckland CBD • Since Nov 2006 • 314 posts Report

  • Russell Brown,

    Anyway folks, must go and make a TV show. Thanks for helping me sharpen up my Devil's Advocate thing!

    Auckland • Since Nov 2006 • 22850 posts Report

  • Russell Brown, in reply to Stephen Judd,

    Given what happened when Kerry Bolton complained to the BSA about Scott Hamilton’s comments on National Radio, I’m not entirely sanguine about that.

    True. Otoh, we remember that one because it was such an outlier.

    Auckland • Since Nov 2006 • 22850 posts Report

  • ScottY,

    We need a goddamn constitution.

    Good news! We already have one.

    West • Since Feb 2009 • 794 posts Report

  • Lilith __, in reply to Stephen Judd,

    You need to have a very low level of respect for others in the room for it to be “necessary” to be a dick.

    Absolutely. But it’s going to happen. Especially in other “rooms”. And in fact I think that context, or social consensus, is what defines being a dick. Probably people who break local social norms are mostly unjustified, but occasionally, they will be righteous.

    I disagree. To me, "being a dick" is treating other people badly. If you're going to talk with others, I don't think there's much point in getting into a shouting match. If others are being dicks, shouldn't we do better?

    Dunedin • Since Jul 2010 • 3895 posts Report

First ←Older Page 1 2 3 4 5 Newer→ Last

Post your response…

This topic is closed.