Cyberbullying bill passed its second reading...

Forums › ICT Policies and Regulation › Cyberbullying bill passed its second reading...

1 | 2

freitasm

BDFL - Memuneh
80658 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 41070

Administrator

ID Verified

Trusted

Geekzone

Lifetime subscriber

#1268103 26-Mar-2015 09:14

Lias:
KiwiNZ:

Clearly our current laws are not strong enough, it is not OK to harass and denigrate people based on their colour, race, ethnic or national origins, religion, gender, sexual orientation, or disability... ever.

Cannot disagree strongly enough. When it comes to speech I very strongly believe in the words of Evelyn Beatrice Hall when she paraphrased Voltaire "I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it"

We have laws against discrimination and that is sufficient. This law will criminalize someone stating their honest opinion. You don't have to agree with it, or like it, but someone should still be able to post online saying " I don't like Bob because he's a poof" or "I don't like Mohammed because he's a dirty towelhead" without going to jail.

While I agree with your right to say it, I disagree with the essence of it. You can defend your right to say your opinion but not of expressing racism for example. "I don't like Bob because he's a poof" is fine as your opinion. "I think you should kill yourself because you're a poof" is not an opinion.

Remember, fight the idea not the person.

Referral links: Quic Broadband (free setup code: R587125ERQ6VE) | Samsung | AliExpress | Wise | Sharesies

Support Geekzone by subscribing (browse ads-free), or making a one-off or recurring donation through PressPatron.

gzt

18688 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 7827

Lifetime subscriber

#1268139 26-Mar-2015 09:44

KiwiNZ: Clearly our current laws are not strong enough, it is not OK to harass and denigrate people based on their colour, race, ethnic or national origins, religion, gender, sexual orientation, or disability... ever.

However, this law does not make any of that criminal. Therefore it is ineffective for that purpose. Therefore you must agree it is bad law.

Lias

5655 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 3978

ID Verified

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#1268147 26-Mar-2015 09:53

freitasm:
While I agree with your right to say it, I disagree with the essence of it. You can defend your right to say your opinion but not of expressing racism for example. "I don't like Bob because he's a poof" is fine as your opinion. "I think you should kill yourself because you're a poof" is not an opinion.

Remember, fight the idea not the person.

I think you'll find the law as written would still criminalize "I don't like Bob because he's a poof", but even putting that aside, the other statement is still merely opinion. If our hypothetical speaker (let's call him Tony) genuinely holds the opinion that gay people should kill themselves, why shouldn't Tony be able to tell Bob he should kill himself? Tony's opinion has been criminalized, he cannot state a genuinely held opinion, and that to me at least is a far more egregious breach of rights.

More and more people seem to think they have a right to not be offended, we'll I'm sorry you don't, and you shouldn't have. The right to freedom of expression must always come first.

I'm a geek, a gamer, a dad, a Quic user, and an IT Professional. I have a full rack home lab, size 15 feet, an epic beard and Asperger's. I'm a bit of a Cypherpunk, who believes information wants to be free and the Net interprets censorship as damage and routes around it. If you use my Quic signup you can also use the code R570394EKGIZ8 for free setup. Opinions are my own and not the views of my employer.

freitasm

BDFL - Memuneh
80658 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 41070

Administrator

ID Verified

Trusted

Geekzone

Lifetime subscriber

#1268171 26-Mar-2015 10:09

That's the problem... Freedom of Expression or Speech is a political thing. This exists to ensure one's criticism of a government action won't be reciprocated with undue penalties by a much stronger opponent (said government).

In private your rights end where my rights begin. I am not required to hear your opinion at all. So there are alternatives: I can just walk away and leave you talking to yourself or I can respond to it and things can escalate.

Unfortunately people seem to go for the escalation.

Also one's opinion is not necessarily the truth. It's one's opinion and will be different from someone else's opinion.

Do I feel you have the right to say it? Yes. Do I feel people are easily offended for things that should be discounted as opinion? Yes. do I think there are idiots around? Yes.

Do I think someone will criticise me for the use of the word "idiots"? Yes.

Referral links: Quic Broadband (free setup code: R587125ERQ6VE) | Samsung | AliExpress | Wise | Sharesies

Support Geekzone by subscribing (browse ads-free), or making a one-off or recurring donation through PressPatron.

gzt

18688 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 7827

Lifetime subscriber

#1268208 26-Mar-2015 10:33

This whole thing started as an issue to protect minors/children. That is where the focus should be. In contrast the proponents of this law now have to defend its vast overreach.

The reality is that bullying and harrasment will continue to be a problem for students and minors until effective programs are funded. Creating the department of police of facebook is a giant waste of money and resources that could be better spent on this direct purpose. Furthermore it is really just avoiding the issue entirely.

Lias

5655 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 3978

ID Verified

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#1268332 26-Mar-2015 11:52

gzt: This whole thing started as an issue to protect minors/children. That is where the focus should be. In contrast the proponents of this law now have to defend its vast overreach.

The reality is that bullying and harrasment will continue to be a problem for students and minors until effective programs are funded. Creating the department of police of facebook is a giant waste of money and resources that could be better spent on this direct purpose. Furthermore it is really just avoiding the issue entirely.

Part of what galls me about this is that I have a step daughter who was the victim of school bullying, including cyber/electronic bullying, and this new law would do bugger all to stop what happened.

Dell

Shop now for Dell laptops and other devices (affiliate link).

mdooher

Hmm, what to write...
1443 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 910

ID Verified

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#1268348 26-Mar-2015 12:14

Lias:
freitasm:
While I agree with your right to say it, I disagree with the essence of it. You can defend your right to say your opinion but not of expressing racism for example. "I don't like Bob because he's a poof" is fine as your opinion. "I think you should kill yourself because you're a poof" is not an opinion.

Remember, fight the idea not the person.

I think you'll find the law as written would still criminalize "I don't like Bob because he's a poof", but even putting that aside, the other statement is still merely opinion. If our hypothetical speaker (let's call him Tony) genuinely holds the opinion that gay people should kill themselves, why shouldn't Tony be able to tell Bob he should kill himself? Tony's opinion has been criminalized, he cannot state a genuinely held opinion, and that to me at least is a far more egregious breach of rights.

More and more people seem to think they have a right to not be offended, we'll I'm sorry you don't, and you shouldn't have. The right to freedom of expression must always come first.

I tend to agree, If you are offended by something I say , that's your problem, not mine. If I think you should kill yourself, should I have the right to say so? Yes, but should I, as an adult have the right to txt that to a child? No.

Should a child be able to txt it to another child? I suppose so, but that brings up a whole other issue of when it is appropriate for a child to have a cellphone.

The issue of course is making a law that does what is intended but doesn't overreach... I think we already have those laws so all this one is about is a political stunt, that will just cause the rights to free speech to be eroded.

Matthew

andrew027

1286 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 557

#1268435 26-Mar-2015 13:58

freitasm: Just received:

A Bill to curb the growing incidence of cyberbullying and its devastating effects passed its second reading in Parliament last night.

The Harmful Digital Communications Bill introduces a range of measures to address damaging online communications and ensure perpetrators are held to account for their actions.

Justice Minister Amy Adams says the Bill will prevent and reduce the harm caused by cyberbullying and harassment....

Measures in the Bill will...

create a new offence of incitement to commit suicide, in situations where the person does not attempt to take their own life.
...

How does the Bill prevent harm, any more than, say, the Land Transport Act 1998 prevents speeding? It may provide a means to prosecute individuals who persecute others via social media etc. but it doesn't physically stop them from doing it, by which time the harm is already done.

Also, how does incitement to commit suicide stack up against Section 163 of The Crimes Act 1961 which states "No one is criminally responsible for the killing of another by any influence on the mind alone..."?

gzt

18688 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 7827

Lifetime subscriber

#1274339 31-Mar-2015 13:34

http://www.legislation.govt.nz/bill/government/2013/0168/latest/whole.html

This same bill applies to any digital communication and will be used to strike down and censor publication even from established media organisations on the Internet.

Bizarrely - non-digital publications from the same publisher are not subject to that(!) therefore I invoke the slippery slope argument to ask - how long will that last?.

And - is it reasonable to expect citizens to go out in search of paper whenever a contentious issue comes up and some person or government agency wishes to suppress details off the net? Bizarre.

I cannot imagine how anyone with even a basic appreciation of the traditional rights and freedoms can support this bill.

Calling it the "Cyberbullying Bill" is misleading in the extreme. Hanlon's Razor does not seem to fully cover this case but perhaps it is just profoundly stupid. It is just totally faulty and must be thrown out.

1 | 2