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

[Katman]

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

Sorry.

He.Is.Wrong.

Better?

[TheDemonLord]

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

My answer (and by all means it isn't a completely air tight one) is that the rules to my eye actually mean that we can get away with less online than we can in person. Also when factored in things like intent, body language etc. By this I mean if I was to say "Bogan, you are a cunt and I am going to kill you" online - that is in breach of the act, whether I meant it or not. In person, certainly it could be taken as a death threat (which is an existing crime and I believe online media is covered by it) but if I wasn't being serious (as in a joke amongst peers) then no charge would be laid.

The next answer is most of the act is IMO already covered in existing laws (laws about Defamation, libel etc.)

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

It is - I should have been more specific - either the law will be used solely as a legal stick to hit people who cause a tragedy over the head with OR it will be clung to by various groups who will all cry harassment in order to silence their opposition - neither scenario is particularly palatable to me.

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.

Fair enough - I myself am a very big proponent of the the Internet being a free and open space, The Internet flourishes on this basis and to legislate in anyway that impedes on the freedom of the Internet must be done so with great care and debate by those that understand the internet - this pretty much rules out any NZ government from ever being (IMO) capable or even worthy to legislate against the Internet.

[Katman]

Funnily enough, I could imagine Bogan as one of the first to try taking advantage of the new legislation.

Fuckwit.

[bogan]

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

The naive bit (perhaps not the best word in hindsight) was the idea that it would be an abuse, simply because it was bureaucratically derived power.

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.

Then we'll just have to disagree on that.

My answer (and by all means it isn't a completely air tight one) is that the rules to my eye actually mean that we can get away with less online than we can in person. Also when factored in things like intent, body language etc. By this I mean if I was to say "Bogan, you are a cunt and I am going to kill you" online - that is in breach of the act, whether I meant it or not. In person, certainly it could be taken as a death threat (which is an existing crime and I believe online media is covered by it) but if I wasn't being serious (as in a joke amongst peers) then no charge would be laid.

The next answer is most of the act is IMO already covered in existing laws (laws about Defamation, libel etc.)

It is - I should have been more specific - either the law will be used solely as a legal stick to hit people who cause a tragedy over the head with OR it will be clung to by various groups who will all cry harassment in order to silence their opposition - neither scenario is particularly palatable to me.

Fair enough - I myself am a very big proponent of the the Internet being a free and open space, The Internet flourishes on this basis and to legislate in anyway that impedes on the freedom of the Internet must be done so with great care and debate by those that understand the internet - this pretty much rules out any NZ government from ever being (IMO) capable or even worthy to legislate against the Internet.

I guess so, and in another sense online stuff is recorded significantly more thoroughly too, so less to get away with due to absence of proof.

Perhaps this act also clarifies what is covered elsewhere too.

I think parts of the internet flourish, and other parts are cesspits.

I also think it comes down to being a rather big grey area relying on discretion and precedent to see it work properly. Perhaps the age for lawbringer discretion has passed, perhaps not, or perhaps we shall soon see.

Funnily enough, I could imagine Bogan as one of the first to try taking advantage of the new legislation.

Fuckwit.

I'd prefer to think of it as trying to see it enforced

You sound so typical of young university graduates.

Full of shit and loves to voice it.

Sounds like you need a time out, young man

[RDJ]

Sorry.

He.Is.Wrong.

Better?

Same idea of disagreement but politely put. So yes, better.

[TheDemonLord]

I think parts of the internet flourish, and other parts are cesspits.

From my very long and very involved internet career - even the parts that are Cesspits can flourish and grow Flowers (Gardening pun fully intended).

The best example is the wealth of Humour (Memes, Demotivationals etc.) that come from 4Chan (I don't go there, cause its a Cesspit) Some of which have transitioned into popular culture and are in use by people who are probably unaware of 4Chan's existence.

[5ive]

It will suck for those offended parties who find out that differing opinions online don't actually amount to harrassment once it gets to court. Might actually clean up the internet in a positive way...

[jasonu]

Sorry.

He.Is.Wrong.

Better?

That reply makes you sound slightly less of a dick.

[jasonu]

Funnily enough, I could imagine Bogan as one of the first to try taking advantage of the new legislation.

Fuckwit.

Looks like I spoke too soon.
As you were...

[mashman]

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.

It is how it has always been... as you say

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

There is 1 primary driver that drives that behaviour, and it's not survival, it's man made, and begins with money.

It is how it has always been... as you say

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

[Laava]

There is 1 primary driver that drives that behaviour, and it's not survival, it's man made, and begins with money.

It is not money, it is power.

[Ocean1]

When you reward people for a particular behaviour, you get more of it.

There is 1 primary driver that drives that behaviour, and it's not survival, it's man made, and begins with money.

It is not money, it is power.

You don't usually see power used to reward a third party, money is the usual unit.

Which is perfectly acceptable where the donor/client is using his own money and the recipient/supplier isn't extorting it through that bad behaviour.

So, a home owner paying for the services of a plumber to fix a tap is fine, good behaviour and skill is encouraged, stability reigns.

A govt paying anyone with taxpayers money to refrain from behaving badly or to fail to contribute to society is not fine, it rewards poor behaviour, which encourages more of the same. Perfect positive feedback control loop, chaos ensueth.

[Laava]

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?

Don't know if we are quite ready for the robot revolution yet!
http://www.nzherald.co.nz/technology...ectid=11475744

[mashman]

It is not money, it is power.

Buying power mebee. The position has the power, not the money.

Don't know if we are quite ready for the robot revolution yet!
http://www.nzherald.co.nz/technology...ectid=11475744

heh... I read that the other day and felt really sorry for the guy... right up to the point where I read, "stepped inside the safety cage". Darwin would be proud.

[mashman]

You don't usually see power used to reward a third party, money is the usual unit.

Which is perfectly acceptable where the donor/client is using his own money and the recipient/supplier isn't extorting it through that bad behaviour.

So, a home owner paying for the services of a plumber to fix a tap is fine, good behaviour and skill is encouraged, stability reigns.

A govt paying anyone with taxpayers money to refrain from behaving badly or to fail to contribute to society is not fine, it rewards poor behaviour, which encourages more of the same. Perfect positive feedback control loop, chaos ensueth.

It can be a minority of 100 in every country of the world. WTF does usual have to do with anything?

Our money or your life.

So fuckin what. The plumber isn't your usual psychotic rip off merchant.

No money = no chaos! and none of the tom fuckery associated with its accrual.