Cyber bullying proposals gone too far?

Forums › ICT Policies and Regulation › Cyber bullying proposals gone too far?

1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5

2120 posts

Uber Geek

#797593 11-Apr-2013 09:46

networkn:
SaltyNZ:
networkn:

I wholeheartedly agreed with all of your post but thought I would post a comment specifically in reply to this particular section because I have sensed sentiment in this thread multiple times that indicates that only poor people get bullied and only the rich do the bullying, which is actually far from the truth in my experiences.

That's not quite what I'm saying. I'm saying that the law would be abused by rich people, at the expense of poor people.

Abused how?

Rich people can afford to go to court, with a good lawyer etc?

networkn

Networkn
32352 posts

Uber Geek

ID Verified

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#797594 11-Apr-2013 09:48

macuser:
networkn:
SaltyNZ:
networkn:

I wholeheartedly agreed with all of your post but thought I would post a comment specifically in reply to this particular section because I have sensed sentiment in this thread multiple times that indicates that only poor people get bullied and only the rich do the bullying, which is actually far from the truth in my experiences.

That's not quite what I'm saying. I'm saying that the law would be abused by rich people, at the expense of poor people.

Abused how?

Rich people can afford to go to court, with a good lawyer etc?

LOL. That is abuse of the system? In that case we should have no laws, since all laws that require a legal defense are at risk of abuse by the rich.

What a load of nonsense.

SaltyNZ

8231 posts

Uber Geek

Trusted

2degrees

Lifetime subscriber

#797601 11-Apr-2013 09:55

networkn:
Abused how?

The kinds of scenarios already suggested in the other thread discussing this issue.

For example, I post online somewhere that Judith Collins is out of touch with reality because she clearly does not understand the most basic concepts of how the internet works.

She gets upset with that and uses this law to have it taken down because it's bullying. It's not - it's a valid expression of opinion, and one in fact that a lot of people who do understand the internet would agree with. But that doesn't matter, because she has far greater access to the legal resources required to get it taken down than I do to the legal resources to defend it and have it put back again.

It is not the intention of this law to be used in that way, but it is inevitable that it will be. Look at the DMCA for a model of how to abuse the system.

iPad Pro 11" + iPhone 15 Pro Max + 2degrees 4tw!

These comments are my own and do not represent the opinions of 2degrees.

freitasm

BDFL - Memuneh
79294 posts

Uber Geek

Administrator

ID Verified

Trusted

Geekzone

Lifetime subscriber

#797603 11-Apr-2013 09:56

networkn:
SaltyNZ:
KiwiNZ:

Frivolous or recidivist litigation can be sorted by the courts.

No, they won't. Because the law will be abused by much better lawyers than the people the law is brought to bear against can afford. Frivolous/recidivist litigants get away with it everywhere else, why would we be special?

I wholeheartedly agreed with all of your post but thought I would post a comment specifically in reply to this particular section because I have sensed sentiment in this thread multiple times that indicates that only poor people get bullied and only the rich do the bullying, which is actually far from the truth in my experiences.

Correct. But the point is that at some moment someone with more means might feel offended because of misdeeds being made public and use the law crying out "I am being bullied" when in fact it's anything but.

This person can then more easily go to courts to hide these from view and will find lawyers that will know how to use the law to that end - even if it's not actually "bullying".

networkn

Networkn
32352 posts

Uber Geek

ID Verified

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#797605 11-Apr-2013 09:59

SaltyNZ:
networkn:
Abused how?

The kinds of scenarios already suggested in the other thread discussing this issue.

For example, I post online somewhere that Judith Collins is out of touch with reality because she clearly does not understand the most basic concepts of how the internet works.

She gets upset with that and uses this law to have it taken down because it's bullying. It's not - it's a valid expression of opinion, and one in fact that a lot of people who do understand the internet would agree with. But that doesn't matter, because she has far greater access to the legal resources required to get it taken down than I do to the legal resources to defend it and have it put back again.

It is not the intention of this law to be used in that way, but it is inevitable that it will be. Look at the DMCA for a model of how to abuse the system.

So your argument is that because she has resources (for the sake of clarity let's call that money), to hire a lawyer to have this taken down? I believe your example is in the extreme and would be seen by the courts for what it would be.

freitasm

BDFL - Memuneh
79294 posts

Uber Geek

Administrator

ID Verified

Trusted

Geekzone

Lifetime subscriber

#797606 11-Apr-2013 10:01

networkn: So your argument is that because she has resources (for the sake of clarity let's call that money), to hire a lawyer to have this taken down? I believe your example is in the extreme and would be seen by the courts for what it would be.

I doubt courts will see that. Judges follow the letter of the law, not its intent. A good lawyer will put an argument to the judge that this person is "suffering" and will get the article taken down.

Do you really believe people are infallible?

networkn

Networkn
32352 posts

Uber Geek

ID Verified

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#797607 11-Apr-2013 10:01

freitasm:
networkn:
SaltyNZ:
KiwiNZ:

Frivolous or recidivist litigation can be sorted by the courts.

No, they won't. Because the law will be abused by much better lawyers than the people the law is brought to bear against can afford. Frivolous/recidivist litigants get away with it everywhere else, why would we be special?

I wholeheartedly agreed with all of your post but thought I would post a comment specifically in reply to this particular section because I have sensed sentiment in this thread multiple times that indicates that only poor people get bullied and only the rich do the bullying, which is actually far from the truth in my experiences.

Correct. But the point is that at some moment someone with more means might feel offended because of misdeeds being made public and use the law crying out "I am being bullied" when in fact it's anything but.

This person can then more easily go to courts to hide these from view and will find lawyers that will know how to use the law to that end - even if it's not actually "bullying".

Well the people with more resources always have more "options", but this doesn't automatically negate the value of the law. I am not arguing for or against the law itself at this point, but the flawed reasoning behind not bringing it in, because of some perception or fact that the wealthy could gain some advantage with it.

Quic Broadband

Move to New Zealand's best fibre broadband service (affiliate link). Free setup code: R587125ERQ6VE. Note that to use Quic Broadband you must be comfortable with configuring your own router.

freitasm

BDFL - Memuneh
79294 posts

Uber Geek

Administrator

ID Verified

Trusted

Geekzone

Lifetime subscriber

#797609 11-Apr-2013 10:03

Just a have a look at the DMCA in the USA and how it's being used everywhere to take down negative reviews in Yelp and other similar cases.

Censorship by "copyright claim". A law like this here could mean "censorship by bullying claim".

networkn

Networkn
32352 posts

Uber Geek

ID Verified

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#797610 11-Apr-2013 10:04

freitasm:
networkn: So your argument is that because she has resources (for the sake of clarity let's call that money), to hire a lawyer to have this taken down? I believe your example is in the extreme and would be seen by the courts for what it would be.

I doubt courts will see that. Judges follow the letter of the law, not its intent. A good lawyer will put an argument to the judge that this person is "suffering" and will get the article taken down.

Do you really believe people are infallible?

Of course I don't believe that. However I believe that if the legislation is passed it would contain guidelines and definitions of "suffering" that would qualify whether "suffering" had legitimately occurred and in the example given I believe it wouldn't be upheld. It's an extreme example of course, however it's the one we were given.

Again I am not saying at this point I agree or disagree with the proposed law at this point.

freitasm

BDFL - Memuneh
79294 posts

Uber Geek

Administrator

ID Verified

Trusted

Geekzone

Lifetime subscriber

#797613 11-Apr-2013 10:05

Sure, like the Copyright Act who provides a fair balance between guilty and evidence...

No, don't trust the MPs to approve laws that correctly take in consideration our times.

networkn

Networkn
32352 posts

Uber Geek

ID Verified

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#797615 11-Apr-2013 10:07

freitasm: Just a have a look at the DMCA in the USA and how it's being used everywhere to take down negative reviews in Yelp and other similar cases.

Censorship by "copyright claim". A law like this here could mean "censorship by bullying claim".

As someone who has been attempted to be blackmailed into providing a customer with something they weren't entitled to, or receive a bad review I can understand why these things are occurring. People have businesses to run. I am not saying it's never abused, but there are instances for both sides and previously there was no protection against people who place bad reviews if they don't get their way.

networkn

Networkn
32352 posts

Uber Geek

ID Verified

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#797616 11-Apr-2013 10:09

freitasm: Sure, like the Copyright Act who provides a fair balance between guilty and evidence...

No, don't trust the MPs to approve laws that correctly take in consideration our times.

I'm sorry but I am not following your logic. You are saying you don't trust our judges to use judgement and interpret laws correctly in this instance, then do you trust them to do so in other situations? If you have no trust in the legal system what to do ? Should we invalidate all laws then?

SaltyNZ

8231 posts

Uber Geek

Trusted

2degrees

Lifetime subscriber

#797639 11-Apr-2013 10:24

networkn:
Of course I don't believe that. However I believe that if the legislation is passed it would contain guidelines and definitions of "suffering" that would qualify whether "suffering" had legitimately occurred and in the example given I believe it wouldn't be upheld. It's an extreme example of course, however it's the one we were given.

Again I am not saying at this point I agree or disagree with the proposed law at this point.

The point is not that the law wouldn't give guidance to the courts. The point is, you have to go to court in the first place. If a politician doesn't like my political speech, they spend nothing to make a complaint. It costs me $1000 to hire a lawyer to fight that complaint, which isn't worth it to me, so I lose by default. The fact that I could go to court and have the speech reinstated is irrelevant, because I won't.

iPad Pro 11" + iPhone 15 Pro Max + 2degrees 4tw!

These comments are my own and do not represent the opinions of 2degrees.

MikeB4

18435 posts

Uber Geek

ID Verified

Trusted

#797641 11-Apr-2013 10:26

freitasm:
networkn: So your argument is that because she has resources (for the sake of clarity let's call that money), to hire a lawyer to have this taken down? I believe your example is in the extreme and would be seen by the courts for what it would be.

I doubt courts will see that. Judges follow the letter of the law, not its intent. A good lawyer will put an argument to the judge that this person is "suffering" and will get the article taken down.

Do you really believe people are infallible?

The role of the Judge is to interpret the Law, hence precedents.

networkn

Networkn
32352 posts

Uber Geek

ID Verified

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#797650 11-Apr-2013 10:40

SaltyNZ:
networkn:
Of course I don't believe that. However I believe that if the legislation is passed it would contain guidelines and definitions of "suffering" that would qualify whether "suffering" had legitimately occurred and in the example given I believe it wouldn't be upheld. It's an extreme example of course, however it's the one we were given.

Again I am not saying at this point I agree or disagree with the proposed law at this point.

The point is not that the law wouldn't give guidance to the courts. The point is, you have to go to court in the first place. If a politician doesn't like my political speech, they spend nothing to make a complaint. It costs me $1000 to hire a lawyer to fight that complaint, which isn't worth it to me, so I lose by default. The fact that I could go to court and have the speech reinstated is irrelevant, because I won't.

Well everyone has to pay for lawyers, just because someone with money CAN afford to do it, doesn't mean they will. Most lawyers would advise clients on the potential to win and lose and it will depend on the merits.
If someone has the money and feels it important enough they have the means to defend themselves against a claim, but that doesn't absolutely guarantee that result.

There are very few people who wouldn't have to "pay" and those people are exempt for a lot of laws not just that one, so the argument against this particular law holds no more water than the others.

1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5