Posts by Rich of Observationz
Last ←Newer Page 1 2 3 4 5 Older→ First
-
Hard News: Media3: Where harm might fall, in reply to Craig Ranapia,
You think it should have been censored? Blocked by a firewall?
-
Hard News: Media3: Where harm might fall, in reply to Russell Brown,
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...
-
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.
-
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.
-
Hard News: Paying for what doesn't come…, in reply to BenWilson,
And cellular data is almost reaching the pricing where it's affordable to use a smartphone for all-day radio listening over 3G. Except of course, when one's roadtrip goes outside the coverage area.
-
Principle 3 -- A communication should not be grossly offensive to a reasonable person in the complainant’s position.
So this would proscribe the internet equivalent of flag-burning? Notwithstanding Morse v Police.
Principle 7 -- A communication should not contain a matter that is published in breach of confidence.
Does Trevor Mallard have an expectation of confidence in relation to the right-wing talking point he posted on Facebook, then deleted?
A communication should not denigrate a person by reason of his or her ... religion, ....
So calling the Associate Education Minister out for his belief in creationism would be illegal, then.
-
Hard News: Media3: Where harm might fall, in reply to Graeme Edgeler,
Yeah, but as I say, that's really a drafting fix. (Does a 'telephone device' include a modem? What's the difference between SMS and email - both are computerised messaging systems?)
I remember when (in the UK, maybe elsewhere) 'phone phreakers' were charged with 'theft of electricity'.
-
vulnerable people do suffer harm from bullying
Yes, I know. Like many, I had a fairly horrible childhood.
I don't however think if we had had the cops round the school on a weekly basis and the bullies arrested and charged, it would necessarily have worked. (If you locked up all the 8-15 year olds who did something culpable, I reckon you'd probably be looking at finding room in some sort of Borstal for 20-30% of the school population).
My point is that people are often not nice. There is a threshold at which this becomes criminal. This shouldn't (and can't) be set too low. In general (and I'm willing to accept a need for some tweaking) the laws and criminal court procedures we already have set that level appropriately.
I don't believe that there is a type of offending that is serious enough to be proscribed, but not so serious that those accused aren't entitled to a proper court procedure.
-
Hard News: Media3: Where harm might fall, in reply to Russell Brown,
EDIT: I missed Graeme making exactly the same point upthread...
a teenager unable to stop pictures of her being sexually violated distributed electronically
Which would be objectionable material under s.3.2.b of the Films and Video Classification Act, and s1.a if she was under age. That's a serious offence already.
, and actual threats accompanied by pictures of mutilated bodies
s.306.1 and/or 2 of the Crimes Act. Seven years in jail.
As far as I'm aware, nowhere in any NZ law does it say "except on the Internet". So we have offences, we have elaborate mechanisms of enforcement. If the police and other regulators are failing to conduct adequate investigations, that's a matter for improvement in their systems, not new offences.
-
People behave in may ways that one might consider less than desirable.
I personally have a virulent objection to the unnecessary use of horns in the Mt Vic tunnel. Oh, and to people claiming superior knowledge of a wide variety of topics with no ascertainable basis. Not to mention dressing in a replica of your favourite footballer/cyclist/wrestlers uniform when out and about in public.
However, I don't think those things should be proscribed with the full force of law. Society is better if we confine that to truly serious matters. We already have far too many attempts at social control enshrined in our laws, with limited, but often negative effect.