Hard News: Media3: Where harm might fall
117 Responses
First ←Older Page 1 2 3 4 5 Newer→ Last
-
Lilith __, in reply to
Anyway folks, must go and make a TV show.
That old excuse! :-)
-
Lilith __, in reply to
We need a goddamn constitution.
Like the US? Heaven forfend.
-
Morgan Nichol, in reply to
Good news! We already have one.
No we absolutely do not have one.
Because what I mean is a written constitution that codifies our many freedoms, in a form that can't be overruled by ordinary laws as passed by parliament.
Basically what the BORA was originally proposed to be, but which was watered down by parliament, so which we didn't get.
-
Apart from anything else, this law will be read consistently with the Bill of Rights Act. I dunno, the more people argue against it, the more I feel I am for it.
Written supreme constitutions merely shift the argument to a pseudo-judicial forum. No real benefit.
Stephen: yeah, I agree that it's often necessary to be a dick. But I think your right to be a dick is pretty safe.
(Edited to add: one way is to think of this as making it less likely that people will go to court over stuff said on the internet by offering an alternative resolution method. )
-
Rich of Observationz, in reply to
It says that political speech requires the highest degree of protection.
What's "political" speech? A Kiwirail report on poor maintenance standards?
(Which a District Court* judge, who under this proposed law would be the trusted gatekeeper of free speech, was happy to injunct, presumably on confidentiality grounds).
* might have been High Court...
-
Freedom of speech is a very precious right, and one that is always under threat. The fact that I might not like what someone says, seems to me to be much less important than their right to express it. I see parallels with banning gang patches. As it happens they offend me too, but I get over it. But it would offend me more if I had to live in a country where govts determine what I wear or what I say. And while censorship might not be the only enemy of free speech, I cannot think of any others!!
-
Keir Leslie, in reply to
So this proposed change doesn't make a fig of difference either way then.
-
Graeme Edgeler, in reply to
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.
That might be what the Commission's paper says, but the Commission's draft bill does not. It only says:
In exercising its functions, the tribunal must have regard to the importance of freedom of expression.
Nothing about the importance of political speech, or about it being worthy of the "highest degree of protection" at all. I like to think that the courts/tribunal would anyway, but I'd like to think that the Courts in the UK would too, and that's not working out so well.
-
Steve Parks, in reply to
Do you believe that the principles of natural justice also guarantee a right to an appeal?
No.
Not in themselves, perhaps. But the principles of natural justice include “fairness of the procedure”, which these days seems to be considered to include: "offer right of appeal or review".
Okay, those points are the State Services Commission’s guidelines, but still, I’d expect that there’s a case that fairness can’t be achieved if one party has access to an appeal option but the other party doesn’t.
-
Craig Ranapia, in reply to
It says that political speech requires the highest degree of protection.
Which is something I'm a little ambiguous about, because let's be frank... does Todd Akin's "legitimate rape" fuck-wittery deserve such protection simply because it's "political speech"?
-
Angus Robertson, in reply to
Of course. the Democrats will be using that and other associated rape jokes in political attack ads for the next couple of weeks. Should be fun.
-
Rich of Observationz, in reply to
You think it should have been censored? Blocked by a firewall?
-
Rob S, in reply to
does Todd Akin's "legitimate rape" fuck-wittery deserve such protection simply because it's "political speech"?
As an insight into the man I think it's done it's task extremely well. As distasteful as it is. Something about sunlight being the best disinfectant.
I understand that a line has to be drawn re hate speech etc, I also think that we have to tread very warily in regard of what people can and can't say with dare I say it the line being towards freedom to make an absolute cock of one's self. -
Bart Janssen, in reply to
That’s just how it starts.
Slippery slope argument.
You appear to be arguing that because a law protecting a king from insult is (in our opinion) stupid and unjust then protecting people from the harm that internet bullying does should not be pursued.
I agree someone (presumably experienced members of a tribunal) should be in a position to exercise judgement as when the rules should or should not be applied. But that is the entire basis of our legal system - trusting experienced judges to make judgements.
-
Graeme Edgeler, in reply to
let’s be frank… does Todd Akin’s “legitimate rape” fuck-wittery deserve such protection simply because it’s “political speech”?
Yes it does.
As does Harry Hammond's sign in the UK which read "Jesus Gives Peace, Jesus is Alive, Stop Immorality, Stop Homosexuality, Stop Lesbianism, Jesus is Lord" should not have resulted in a hate speech conviction, with fines and court costs of £695.
I also think I disagree that a line has to drawn with hate speech. I'm not sure that follows at all. We seem to have okay for the last 162 years with laws that only go so far as discouraging calls to violence.
-
Would be happy to put up a "Stop Harry Hammond" sign,
-
l,
-
Yoda :)
-
Bart Janssen, in reply to
We seem to have okay for the last 162 years with laws that only go so far as discouraging calls to violence.
I think that's the problem for me. While that law is good in its simplicity I don't believe it has done enough to prevent harm over that period. So no it isn't okay.
One part of that is that it is only fairly recently that we've come to understand that words can do more harm ... the "man up" response hasn't helped either.
The other part is that technology really does make a difference. The change in technology means that words have more power to do harm than they did 162 yrs ago, or even 10 years ago.
I get that lawyers and legislators are reluctant to introduce new laws that have the potential to do harm themselves (by restricting speech) but balanced against that is the knowledge that people are being harmed and there is little in the law to prevent that harm occurring. Getting such a new law or legal entity in place and getting it right will be hard but that isn't a reason to not try.
And for those that present totalitarian states as a consequence of limiting speech I'd suggest thinking about youth and adult suicide rates as the other extreme. Neither extreme argument is entirely helpful.
-
Morgan Nichol, in reply to
Yes it does.
Agree.
People have to be able to express "wrong" opinions. Even stupid, racist, homophobic, misogynist, anti-semitic, anti-religious, anti-whatever opinions.
-
TracyMac, in reply to
I think Anil Dash expressed the best perspective on the uses of site moderation: If your website's full of assholes, it's your fault
-
Morgan Nichol, in reply to
Is being annoyed the same as being harmed? Irritated? Upset? Bothered? Flustered? Insulted? Where is the line drawn?
-
If you read the Law Commission report, you'll see they talk about this quite thoughtfully.
-
Bart Janssen, in reply to
Is being annoyed the same as being harmed? Irritated? Upset? Bothered? Flustered? Insulted? Where is the line drawn?
It's drawn case by case. In each case you are dealing with individuals. Some may be more or less susceptible to harm. But the fact remains that some people are harmed, sometimes irreparably. That's why you need to exercise judgement when applying whatever legal tool you use.
I don't think anyone is saying making those judgements will be easy.
It is no good saying we'll just ignore a person's suffering because we can imagine a situation where a rule that protects them could be abused. The response needs to be one of making considered judgements not making absolutes and then arguing that one absolute rule can't work.
-
Morgan Nichol, in reply to
Do we really want laws that we hope will only be enforced sometimes?
Or does everyone go before the tribunal and the ones who weren't really serious maybe they get let off?
Because Paul Chambers was convicted for his stupid "I'm blowing the airport sky high!" joke, and it took three appeals & two years to clear his name, and in the meantime he lost his job and faced who knows how much stress.
All for saying something stupid on twitter.
That kind of thing doesn't seem desirable to me.
Post your response…
This topic is closed.