MPs of both major parties are accomplices to this toxic, asinine, stupid legislation

[Robbo]

So we can't tell Honda riders they are gay any more?

The Fun Police are ruining our lives.

[RDJ]

Repost police here... but yours has a better title

Feel free to delete / merge etc.

Yes, the Govt (of either stripe, National and Labour) always feels free to spend other people's money so they can feel good about themselves. No evidence that internet bullying is uniquely responsible for the present suicide rate* - but politicians inhabit a stupidity-rich and frequently fact-free zone.

**

*NZ like for example Scandinavian countries reports high satisfaction amongst our citizens as a place to live - but like Scandinavia esp. Finland, we have a dauntingly high suicide rate. A Russian psychiatrist (I lived and worked there for a few years a decade ago) explained to me at the time that the suicide rate for Russia was far lower than that for Finland because the Finnish felt they should be happier when they weren't, so it was their fault; whereas the Russians could always find an external reason / something going wrong in their own country / city / environment, to blame their misery on. That reminded me of the aphorism "every problem has a solution that is simple, elegant, and wrong." But it has a superficial attractiveness as a logical explanation. For example, New Zealand and Taiwan have completely different cultures, but suicide rates fell dramatically after the earthquakes in these two countries. (That said, a year to 18 months after the earthquakes, the suicide rates start to climb again; and clearly, it's not a smart suggestion to manufacture a major crisis so fewer people kill themselves in the short term...).

It may be something as simple as the fact that there has traditionally been not a lot of publicity about suicide in NZ (other than episodically specially after teen suicides), so those who see no other way out, can work no other way out - because they don't know of another way out... but it seems more likely that there is no quick fix one size fits all solution to this tragic problem.

[Scuba_Steve]

*NZ like for example Scandinavian countries reports high satisfaction amongst our citizens as a place to live - but like Scandinavia esp. Finland, we have a dauntingly high suicide rate. A Russian psychiatrist (I lived and worked there for a few years a decade ago) explained to me at the time that the suicide rate for Russia was far lower than that for Finland because the Finnish felt they should be happier when they weren't, so it was their fault; whereas the Russians could always find an external reason / something going wrong in their own country / city / environment, to blame their misery on. That reminded me of the aphorism "every problem has a solution that is simple, elegant, and wrong." But it has a superficial attractiveness as a logical explanation. For example, New Zealand and Taiwan have completely different cultures, but suicide rates fell dramatically after the earthquakes in these two countries. (That said, a year to 18 months after the earthquakes, the suicide rates start to climb again; and clearly, it's not a smart suggestion to manufacture a major crisis so fewer people kill themselves in the short term...).

It may be something as simple as the fact that there has traditionally been not a lot of publicity about suicide in NZ (other than episodically specially after teen suicides), so those who see no other way out, can work no other way out - because they don't know of another way out... but it seems more likely that there is no quick fix one size fits all solution to this tragic problem.

Na it's boredom... Finland & NZ is too bubble-wrapped, Russia can still have fun

[TheDemonLord]

But perhaps it could provide a stronger template for internet moderation in the first place.

With all the hassle of tracking down internet anonymity etc, I think the application of it after something tragic has happened is the correct way to go, otherwise you end up either coming down way too hard on just few people to make examples of, or 'spot fines' all over the show which can't cover the cost of prosecution.

I am not so sure - it makes me deeply uneasy that there is a law created without the intention of pro-active enforcement or prevention, but is there solely so that after a tragedy, society can point the finger at an individual and absolve themselves of any blame or responsibility.

Especially when coupled by the seemingly limitless scope of interpretation based on the wording of the legislation.

[bogan]

I am not so sure - it makes me deeply uneasy that there is a law created without the intention of pro-active enforcement or prevention, but is there solely so that after a tragedy, society can point the finger at an individual and absolve themselves of any blame or responsibility.

Especially when coupled by the seemingly limitless scope of interpretation based on the wording of the legislation.

I guess, maybe we can get them to make an example out of some of the anti-semites on this site as a starter.

Yeh, I balked at that a bit too, but look at it from the other side, how else could you word it? And it all sounds a bit like the boyracer laws in some respects too, open to interpretation, but also to discretion.

[TheDemonLord]

I guess, maybe we can get them to make an example out of some of the anti-semites on this site as a starter.

Yeh, I balked at that a bit too, but look at it from the other side, how else could you word it? And it all sounds a bit like the boyracer laws in some respects too, open to interpretation, but also to discretion.

The issue I have with the wording is (Dons Tin Foil Hat of +10 conspiracy points) is that broadness of scope could be used to censor legitimate discussion on the internet. Even if we put the Censorship of the Internet issue to the side (suffice to say, I don't support it, in almost any form - except kiddie porn and Peadobears - I would support North Korean style tactics applied against them)

The law as it stands requires a large amount of trust on the part of the Internet user base that the Government will exercise discretion when needed and will only bring its guns to bear when there is something serious.

The second part I have trouble with is certain groups that have a professional victim complex will cling to this law to censure any dissension or opposing view in order to further their own agenda.

And it worries me.

[mashman]

Well, this is why I would do it if I were them:

With the future of robotics all but guaranteed to be taking jobs away from humans, and need must be generated that criminalises the young coming through today, so that they hit the job market marked. Discerning employers will not tolerate those with a history of colourful language use. That still leaves the issue of what to do with those who use that colourful language and are also unemployable. Therefore, I will use taxpayers money to build youth holding centers, because I can guarantee filling them and can guarantee that none will complain that their taxes are rising, because those who use such colourful language will be behind bars.

What do you think they want to do this for?

[bogan]

The issue I have with the wording is (Dons Tin Foil Hat of +10 conspiracy points) is that broadness of scope could be used to censor legitimate discussion on the internet. Even if we put the Censorship of the Internet issue to the side (suffice to say, I don't support it, in almost any form - except kiddie porn and Peadobears - I would support North Korean style tactics applied against them)

The law as it stands requires a large amount of trust on the part of the Internet user base that the Government will exercise discretion when needed and will only bring its guns to bear when there is something serious.

The second part I have trouble with is certain groups that have a professional victim complex will cling to this law to censure any dissension or opposing view in order to further their own agenda.

And it worries me.

I guess the question that springs to mind, why should we be able to say more harmful things online than we can in person?

Yeh that is true, trust in the Approved Agency though, not the govt directly.

Is that not contrary to the idea that action will only be taken after some happens though?

It worries me too, does it worry me as much as the current state of some parts of the internet though? I don't think so.

[Katman]

It worries me too, does it worry me as much as the current state of some parts of the internet though? I don't think so.

Let me guess.....

You don't like the fact that people are allowed to question official stories.

[RDJ]

I guess the question that springs to mind, why should we be able to say more harmful things online than we can in person?

Yeh that is true, trust in the Approved Agency though, not the govt directly.

Is that not contrary to the idea that action will only be taken after some happens though?

It worries me too, does it worry me as much as the current state of some parts of the internet though? I don't think so.

Whenever a government gives its bureaucrats more power, its bureaucrats will abuse it - while claiming they are not. And while billing the victims (the taxpayers) for the cost of the bureaucratic abuse.

[bogan]

What restrictions are there on what we can say in person?

Slander, hate speech, incitement to criminal acts; all off limits in person, yet all too common on here.

Whenever a government gives its bureaucrats more power, its bureaucrats will abuse it - while claiming they are not. And while billing the victims (the taxpayers) for the cost of the bureaucratic abuse.

Bit of a naive sweeping statement I think. Plenty of legislation in action that holds this society together. Yeh this stuff does seem more open to abuse than most; but I think at the very least, the intent is good.

[Katman]

Slander, hate speech, incitement to criminal acts; all off limits in person, yet all too common on here.

Really?

I haven't seen anything on here that wouldn't be thrown out of court whilst laughing, if someone took offensive of the same being said in person.

[RDJ]

Bit of a naive sweeping statement I think. Plenty of legislation in action that holds this society together. Yeh this stuff does seem more open to abuse than most; but I think at the very least, the intent is good.

Sweeping, yes. Naive, no. When you reward people for a particular behaviour, you get more of it.

[Katman]

Bit of a naive sweeping statement I think. Plenty of legislation in action that holds this society together. Yeh this stuff does seem more open to abuse than most; but I think at the very least, the intent is good.

You sound so typical of young university graduates.

Full of shit and loves to voice it.

[RDJ]

You sound so typical of young university graduates.

Full of shit and loves to voice it.

Now my next statement is definitely going to sound naive. But, why not just disagree with Bogan without all the excremental metaphors?