Loomio

****ing censorship? Harmful Digital Communications Bill

DU Andrew McPherson Public Seen by 205

http://www.parliament.nz/en-nz/pb/legislation/bills/00DBHOH_BILL12843_1/harmful-digital-communications-bill

David:
Does censorship have to be imposed online just because someone said some mean or naughty words ?
Or should "Crusher" Collins MP **** off and read Voltaire ?
[I disapprove of what you have to say, but I will defend to the death to say it.]

Strypey:
It would be good to come up with a statement on the pros and cons of this Bill from the Pirate POV. The TechLiberty analysis might be a good starting point:
http://techliberty.org.nz/safe-harbours-in-hdc-bill-are-a-threat-to-freedom-of-expression/

Both NetSafe and Judith Collins seems to be pumping out media releases to justify this bill:
http://www.radionz.co.nz/news/national/233720/online-predators-getting-bolder
http://www.radionz.co.nz/news/national/235831/complaint-after-porn-video-goes-viral

DP

David Peterson Thu 5 Dec 2013 3:18PM

Agreed, we should strongly oppose this. Free speech online is core to us.

CM

Craig Magee Thu 5 Dec 2013 8:00PM

What parts of the Bill will the party be opposing?

Many amendments, such as extending places where racial or sexual harassment take place (the are actually digitally ambiguous), make a lot of sense.
The orders that the District Court can make to the defendant include taking down offending material, cease the conduct concerned, and make a public correction or apology.

It's personal accountability for behaviour online. Not censorship in that you can't say what you like or that ISPs and service hosts are forced to police their users; it removes their responsibility and accountability for an individual's actions.

DS

Danyl Strype Fri 6 Dec 2013 9:31AM

It would be good to come up with a statement on the pros and cons of this Bill from the Pirate POV. The TechLiberty analysis might be a good starting point:
http://techliberty.org.nz/safe-harbours-in-hdc-bill-are-a-threat-to-freedom-of-expression/

CM

Craig Magee Fri 6 Dec 2013 10:02AM

I hadn't noticed that bit (20). I was focused on the definition of an 'Approved Agency', which needs to be detailed more.
Some sites don't allow user removal of content (or removal after a period of time). A provision for the Approved Agency (assuming what that is can be clarified) to make a takedown request isn't out of the question, even if it would be largely ineffective.

DS

Danyl Strype Fri 6 Dec 2013 10:35PM

My first question would be, is there anything special about "digital communications" (as opposed to say printed ones) that justifies targeted legislation. Why are all the existing laws against libel, defamation, harassment, stalking etc etc inadequate?

DS

Danyl Strype Fri 6 Dec 2013 10:37PM

(just amended the title to make it clear what we're discussing here to any member rocking up to check out the Policy group)

CM

Craig Magee Sun 8 Dec 2013 7:45AM

Is there any development on this besides disliking Judith Collins and the use of the word 'digital' in the title?

DS

Danyl Strype Sun 8 Dec 2013 7:54AM

"the use of the word ‘digital’ in the title?"

This oversimplifies both TechLiberty's concerns and my own. Have another look.

Renaming the bill will not fix the weighting against digital publishers - particularly small and self-publishers - at a significant relative benefit to state and corporate publishers who also own print and/or broadcast media.

DS

Danyl Strype Sun 8 Dec 2013 8:05AM

Surely Pirates oppose laws against “harmful information” - as judged by the state - which could be used to muzzle any citizen journalists who self-publish on the internet?

CM

Craig Magee Sun 8 Dec 2013 10:16AM

I'm asking for detail.

If the party is just going to say it doesn't like the Bill and tell Collins to fuck off then that's fine. It won't have as much effect as specifying what needs changing and what doesn't though.
TechLiberty are doing it right.

Load More