Apparently New Zealand is governed by morons

"

MonstaMunch wrote:

If defamation and harrassment are already illegal, then this law clearly wasn't designed to be used "responsibly" because under responsible implementation, anything relevant is already illegal anyway.....

Exactly. In general, I'm really annoyed by the turn that some of the so-called "western" countries are taking on this matter. Right now it's just about "#fightagainsthate" and closing websites, preventing shows to take place, hunts witching on the internet about nothing and seeing racists/antisemits everywhere. Most of the time those accusations are way exaggerated and only concern people's opinions (I'm not talking about direct insults of course). I think nobody should be sued just for a matter of opinion, even on the most controversial topics. Everybody needs to be the victim of someone nowadays it seems, every little group of people need its own "day" and to rely on some painful background and memories (even if it means making it up partially or totally).

I haven't read the law. And if I read it I'm sure I wouldn't understand most of it since it would all be legalese. I'm assuming it's like most other legislation of this sort. It becomes a battle of words; mostly misinformation, half truths, and wild stretches. One group or another is against it, and they use scare tactics in their campaign to sway public opinion.

I don't know what the law really says. I don't know how well it's written. And neither does anyone else except maybe a few experts. All we have to go on is the word of whoever happens to write about it, and that will mostly be biased.

One thing that stands out about this. It was passed 116 to 5. I think it's highly unlikely that anything passing by that large of a margin is nearly as bad as some people make it out to be. ALL legislation has loopholes and the potential to be used wrongly. It's impossible to write legislation that doesn't have flaws.

Legislation like this doesn't stand on it's own. It works within a larger system, with various checks and balances. (Is New Zealand a common law country?) Part of the checks and balances require consideration of the intent of the law, as well as the letter of the law. If a specific case doesn't meet the intent of the law, or fit within the larger system of law, then it's unlikely for it to stand. After a few cases it will be worked out just what falls within the scope of this law, and what doesn't.

It might sound like I'm in favor of the law. I'm not. I don't know enough about it to be for or against it. All I'm saying is that the information is probably highly biased and suspect. Just because somebody suggests extreme possibilities doesn't mean there is any realistic chance of that actually happening.

Bottom line is that I tend to ignore these things until I find out what it's really about.

As far as the overall topic. I don't see any reason for special legislation regarding the internet. All laws that apply anywhere else also apply on the internet. If it's illegal to do face-to-face, then it's illegal to do on the internet. At most, it might need a court ruling to clearly state that, yes, the same laws apply on the internet.

"

harddaysnight wrote:

One thing that stands out about this. It was passed 116 to 5. I think it's highly unlikely that anything passing by that large of a margin is nearly as bad as some people make it out to be.

Some very bad laws from my country or other european countries regarding freedom of speech/"hate"/etc. passed with a very large margin, yet they are very bad and are most of the time used outside their intented scope. I won't go further in this discussion since it might bring some very sensitive topics and today most people have a hard time making the distinction between acknowleding the right for someone to write or think on any topic he wants (the "form") and agreeing with the actual content. When it comes to such sensitive topics, it seems almost everybody lose all reason.

wait, could you sue a website from let s say a political website forum if their view on let s say sexuality or whatever private matter is hurting you ?

116 to 5. That's not barely squeaking by, but a show of overwhelming support. It indicates that, if NZ is governed by morons, it is also populated by them; no legislature could ever be that divergent from its constituency.

Thanks to classic governmental sanctimony and moral superiority, another body of leaders meddles in things best left regulated by their own participants. This sort of thing simply makes being offended (or a reasonably convincing facsimile thereof) a license to destroy. =>[.]<=

Apparently, the UK is also governed by morons:
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3145629/Teachers-confiscate-unhealthy-food-Government-issues-rules-carry-lunchbox-inspections.html?ITO=1490&ns_mchannel=rss&ns_campaign=1490

"

...Manley Park Primary School in Manchester banned healthy snacks such as cereal bars from children's packed lunches - despite offering pizza, chocolate fudge cake and fish fingers on its lunch menu.

Food fascism. ='[.]'=

There will come a time where the Golden Age of the internet that we are currently living in will come to an end. Anyone who thinks otherwise is most likely a fool.

When the internet initially exploded in popularity, there was so many people who had no idea WTF it was, what it was about, or the endless possibilities it presented, and so it went unregulated. People had a place where they could come and discuss everything their shitty hearts desired; you can sign up to the official KKK online, or find a red-pillers site and discuss your hatred of millions of people with other like-minded bigots; you could (previously) navigate your way to [redacted because illegal] and buy the services of assassins, and other very illegal things I won't go into; you can find thousands, if not millions, of awful videos and gifs of people dying because some weirdos like watching a car get hit by a speeding train.

The point is the internet, while wonderful, is also extremely dangerous in its possibilities. Yes, you can go on the internet and use it productively; learn a new language, explore the world, read ancient history, whatever the fuck you're into, but too many people use it to cyber bully other people because it's so fucking easy through a screen.

Imagine some scrawny kid being bullied at school. He's got tape twirled around his broken glasses, his lunch gets stolen every day, and everyone in his grade talks about him and spreads rumours behind his back. Pretty sad. That kid hates bullies. Now imagine that kid goes home, starts up his computer and logs onto twitter (or whatever the kids are using these days). Someone posts a video of a dog running into a glass door; he leaves a comment saying 'that dog's a stupid fucktard and so are you'. Doesn't seem that bad right? Except that kid leaves dozens of comments like that every day, not even realising he's bullying someone because the screens between them take away the face of the person you're hurting. Even small comments like that can hurt someone; not everyone has a thick skin and can just brush that shit off. Imagine if he said that to an innocent little seven year old? Or if he said that to someone who just had the shit beaten out of them by their abusive parent who thinks their life will never get better. Then some fucking kid on the internet comes along and stomps all over their last nerve, and that guy kills himself? Over a fucking dog being funny.

You may not like it, but the freedom we've previously experienced on the internet is coming to an end. Google it if you want to read more.

"

LadyZeyra wrote:

You may not like it, but the freedom we've previously experienced on the internet is coming to an end. Google it if you want to read more.

If this turns out to be true someone will build a better internet :) Think of Tor but without cp and the prehistoric surf speed.