back to article With Hobbit and LoTR in the can, Trolls no longer welcome in New Zealand

New Zealand has become the latest country to think bad online manners are amenable to legislation. The country last night passed a controversial bill, the Harmful Digital Communications Bill, in the hope of stemming “cyber-bullying”. The bill creates a regime under which digital communications causing “serious emotional …

  1. dan1980

    Of course, the best part of a bill like this is that it provides a reason find out the real identities of people posting online.

    1. This post has been deleted by its author

  2. msknight

    What about the intolerance of religions to those without religion? Or those who want religions to back up their claims with actual proof? This sounds like it is going to be an utter mess. Glad it's happening over there, first.

    1. No, I will not fix your computer

      What about religions that require you to be intolerant of other religions?

      Theist: I think you should be killed for your beliefs

      Atheist: You shouldn't say that

      Theist: Look, a "get of jail card", I'm just practising my religion

      Theist: I think you should be killed for your beliefs

      Atheist: I think your beliefs are stupid

      Theist: You're being intolerant and I will be reporting you for this

      1. TBlakely

        Lol, atheist are so forgetful. Remember the 20th century? Atheist killed more people in a 50-60 period than all the religious persecutions in history. Hitler, Stalin, Mao, Pol Pot plus many more culpable in that period were all atheists. Not exactly a record to be lording it over religious types.

        1. Trevor_Pott Gold badge

          Hitler was a Christian. To my knowledge none of those individuals killed people for being religious. Oh, they committed terrible crimes, but not in the name of "atheism".

          The crimes that have been committed in the name of theism, however, are insane. And that's just in the bast year or so. If you want to tally one notch against the other for the past 125 some odd years, I think you'll struggle to find a handful of notches for the "killed in the name of atheism" stick and you'll run out of sticks upon which to notch the "killed in the name of theism".

          Next to theism racial/ethnic intolerance is probably the biggest single reason for humans to murder eachoether. After that would be economic strife.

          1. TBlakely

            You really need to learn your history. Hitler despised Christianity. he thought it was a religion for the 'weak'. He planned on returning the German people to their pagan roots, a much more 'vigorous', more suitable religion for Germans.... at least in his mind.

            So sorry, all the great atrocities of the 20th century were committed by atheists. Whether or not they did it 'in the name of atheism' is moot and the scale of their murders is mind boggling, ranging from 100 to 200 million people in less than a century (depending on whose estimate you want to believe, it's not like they kept good records). One wonders what goes on in the heads of atheists that turns them into such soulless monsters.

            1. Trevor_Pott Gold badge

              Hitler disliked the clergy, not the religion. He sought to reduce the influence of organised religions on society so that he could increase the power of the state. Things get muddled beyond that.

              There are plenty of historical revisionists who try to paint Hitler as rabidly anti-christian, but precious little proof. They take his desire to see the christian influence on state matters broken as some sort of evidence that he was planning a purge. But Hitler was above all pragmatic. He didn't seem to care overmuch what people believed so long as they obeyed.

              More interestingly, Hitler made constant references to "the almighty" and "the creator". So much so that a great many scholars feel that they went beyond mere pandering to the masses and that he, himself actually believed in a deity. This is typically believed to be the god of Abraham as his mother was Christian and he never seemed to talk about deities plural, only singular.

              As for the rest, why people kill absolutely matters. It's what allows us to learn from the atrocities and prevent them in the future. There were no major killings in the past 125 years that can be attributed to killings in the name of atheism. Atheists do not kill others in order to eliminate religious beliefs.

              But oh, the hundreds of millions that have been killed in the past 125 years in the name of religion, ethnic hatred or other forms of bigotry and intolerance! Funny how you'd have everyone simply ignore that so you can preach your own bigotry and intolerance.

              And yes, atheists are soulless. So are you, by the way. Because souls don't exist. Being soulless, however, is not cognate with being immoral. This can be proven quite simply: there is no god (or gods) so all morality is godless. Whether you are taught your morality through the institution of a church or you come to your morality through some other means, no deity has any part in it because deities do not exist. Cut and dried.

              The result of that, of course, is that we must accept that some people are pretty horrible, regardless of their upbringing. Atheist, christian, buddhist, shinto, worshiper of the almighty Kermit the Frog, it doesn't matter. Some people are genetically beyond redemption. Others are genetically on the fence and environmentally sent down the wrong path, and some are perfectly normal then broken by events and ultimately end up beyond hope.

              So are there atheists who have done bad things? Sure! But they tend to do those bad things in the name of power or politics. Without a deity to hide behind the part where they're fucking loony tunes and evil as a bag of rancid wiener juice is pretty obvious from the beginning.

              But theists are another story. For thousands of years they have bamboozled empire after empire into giving them special dispensation. They swindle and hoodwink billions into belief in something that doesn't exist. Hell, they can't even agree amongst themselves what does and doesn't exist. It's all lies upon bullshit upon scams from top to bottom.

              So when one emerges from amidst the theocratic cesspool of irrationality and starts agitating for extra special layers of hatred and bigotry it's pretty hard to separate them from the rest, at least initially. And once you know for sure that you've got bona-fide fucksticks running about, they hide behind the "religious tolerance" laws and cause untold pain and suffering without anyone who is allowed to stop them.

              Sometimes it's just harassment and bigoted trolling like Westboro Baptist Church. More often it's really fucked up beyond all accounting shit like Scientology. But every now and again you get an Inquisition or Crusade or Jihad. Then you have Chechnya or Sudan or the entire middle east forever and ever amen.

              Religion is nothing but bigotry and hatred protected by law. It's about having everyone obey an unelected set of leaders who tell everyone what to think, believe and do and socially excluding, shunning, excommunicating or even killing those who refuse to bend their will to the crazy trying to use figments of everyone's imagination to obtain power over the masses.

              There are lots of shitty reasons people to shitty things to eachother. Almost all of them are about someone's desire for power over others, and the milled masses being too afraid to say "no". But it is damned rare that someone kills is the name of atheism while killing in the name of theism happens all day, every single fucking day.

              Religion is a problem. Perhaps the biggest problem humanity has ever faced. We need to grow out of this infancy, and quickly.

            2. This post has been deleted by its author

          2. Shovel

            Hitler was an illegitimate Jew

            and wore padded uniforms to look more Aryan.

  3. Jim 59

    “serious emotional distress”

    Online bullying is a problem, particularly on Twitter, as Tim Hunt and many others know to their cost. However the alternative offered here is much, much, much worse. Rather than desist, I think the online bullies will use this law as another weapon on their hapless victims. It curtails freedom and strengthens the bullies' hand all in one.

    So rather than simply bullying Tim Hunt out of his Nobel prize winning job (for example), the Mob will bully him out even faster by saying he caused them "serious emotional distress". A better approach might be to first remove internet anonymity. People behave much better when they are themselves.

    Agree with the suicide bit but that's a different story.

    1. DropBear
      Big Brother

      Re: “serious emotional distress”

      "A better approach might be to first remove internet anonymity. People behave much better when they are themselves."

      People also talk a LOT LESS when they are themselves. I'm perfectly willing to see whatever I write online affect the reputation of a persistent but anonymous alias, but I sure as hell wouldn't risk any consequences spilling over into real-life if I had no choice - I'd just keep my mouth shout as best I could*.

      * I'm obviously not endorsing flat-out threatening other people and such hiding behind anonymity, but I'm definitely not willing to let any authority make a judgement call on what I'm "not allowed to say, or else" either (fine, the relevant admin is welcome to kick me out if he thinks he must).

      1. Jim 59

        Re: “serious emotional distress”

        Any forum where punters are anonymous eventually turns into a hate-chamber. That's what parts of Twitter are now. There are armies of anonymous Twitter users who do nothing except pour bile over their chosen targets 24 hours a day. Sadly this appears to be something in human nature.

        If people were themselves, instead of anonymous, they would be ashamed to behave in that way. Recall the sad case of Twitter user "Sweepyface". She attacked the McCanns ceaselessly. When she was unmasked by Sky News, she unfortunately committed suicide a few days later. I guess she could not stand that behaviour being associated with her name and face. If Twitter was not anonymous she would be alive today.

        I am not sure what the solution is, but removing anonymity from certain areas might be part of it. Freedom of speech laws could operate, and people could critisize openly, as they always did through books and newspapers. At the same time, their targets would be given some level of protection through slander laws or whatever. Some kind of balance. For the record I am pro freedom of speech.

        1. Stevie

          Re: “serious emotional distress”

          Any forum where punters are anonymous eventually turns into a hate-chamber.

          This is simply not true. I am a member of a number of forums which are anonymous in that the screen names are not tied to a real name in any way, shape or form unless the user wishes it so. While there have been disagreements, some of them heated, they are far from what I'd term as a "hate chamber".

          Perhaps the difference is that there are (as far as I know) no adolescents posting, though enraged 13-somethings are not the only source of such behavior, nor are they the most inventive.

          I was once censured on a tightly-focused RPG enthusiasts forum on StackOverflow for posing a question asking how a certain rules set was "broken" (as it was widely stated to be in those words in many fan forums around the net, none of which would provide an explanation of why).

          A moderator posted after almost a day saying that he felt the term "broken" caused arguments and shouldn't be used. He was then joined by three other mods over the course of an hour or so, who began talking up the offensiveness of the term amongst themselves.

          Over the course of maybe another half day they worked themselves from polite headshaking to angrily taking down the post and threatening to ban me from the forum for abusive posting. It was hysterically funny and extremely annoying at the same time.

          In all that time no-one else, including me, had posted anything. The only outrage came from the moderators, and they had to work themselves up to it by stages. I can only guess at how much texting, emailing etc was going on behind the scenes between the Fantastic Four in addition to the Theater of the Mindless taking part in public. A textbook "manufactured outrage" case.

          All to prevent people being outraged enough for them to become cyber-bullies. You could cut the irony with a knife.

    2. fred 32

      Re: “serious emotional distress”

      Disagree with even the suicide bit because that is making someone else responsible for another persons actions.

      This is downright Orwellian chilling of speech since offense is taken, not given.

      Laws like this inevitably allow offense takers to control public discussion...to control thought.

      Its perverse that something like this would pass in a western country. What is free speech anyways? What are free speech laws meant to protect? They protect unpopular and even vulgar speech, because popular speech needs no protection.

      Anyways, how about we start off this law by extraditing John Oliver for calling on his hundreds of thousands in his audience to become a hate mob to harass someone...

      John Oliver - Ecuador's Sensitive President

      https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nMdDykp_KXs&t=2m40s

      "Of course, the best part of a bill like this is that it provides a reason find out the real identities of people posting online."

      Sure, and it was that mentality after 9/11, and the resulting hysteria after that event which led to the massive increase in NSA spending and powers. Only fools are this willing to give up rights for illusory safety.

      The worst trolls I've seen are the ones who use the system and such laws to do their work. These are the feminist clique, with the queen bee's who make bullying people their lifes work. In past decades these would have been the same busy bodies who would have been the morality police under the authority of the church, now, its under the authority of the government and sjw sensitivities. Do not blaspheme, do not "offend", society is going backwards ....and its just sad to see it being dragged there by the left.

      Here's just one example

      http://www.breitbart.com/big-journalism/2015/06/29/harping-on-the-hypocrisy-and-lies-of-twitters-most-notorious-anti-abuse-activist-randi-harper-part-1/

      http://theralphretort.com/big-randi-drags-her-son-into-twitter-scrum-after-milo-strikes-6030015/

      The Hidden Face of Hypocrisy: Randi Harper

      http://s2b20blog.mukyou.com/hidden-face-hypocrisy-randi-harper/

      http://s2b20blog.mukyou.com/the-hidden-face-of-hypocrisy-randi-harper-part-2/

      http://s2b20blog.mukyou.com/the-hidden-face-of-hypocrisy-randi-harper-part-3/

      http://theralphretort.com/silenced-prominent-randi-harper-critic-censored-on-twitter-3017015/

      http://theralphretort.com/randi-harper-tries-to-bully-neutral-writer-into-silence-0308015/

      http://s2b20blog.mukyou.com/the-underhanded-nature-of-the-online-abuse-prevention-initiative/

      http://theralphretort.com/super-abuser-randi-harper-washed-up-punter-libel-mark-kern-3015015/

      http://theralphretort.com/randi-harper-intentionally-leaks-address-0305015/

      http://s2b20blog.mukyou.com/blocked-silencing-public-opinion/

      and one more

      http://www.breitbart.com/Breitbart-London/2014/12/10/The-Madness-Of-Queen-Shanley

      http://www.breitbart.com/london/2015/01/17/i-taught-shanley-kane-how-to-troll-and-im-sincerely-sorry/

      http://www.breitbart.com/london/2015/01/21/yes-i-was-a-racist-and-im-mentally-ill-shanley-kane-in-shocking-social-media-meltdown/

      http://theralphretort.com/even-gawker-cant-ignore-shanley-implosion-courtesy-of-milo-01018015/

  4. Crisp

    What's the definition of serious emotional distress?

    I get that just reading the morning news!

    1. Anonymous Coward
      Anonymous Coward

      Re: What's the definition of serious emotional distress?

      You're lucky, I get it just by seeing religious stations' call letters scroll by when I'm changing channels.

  5. MJI Silver badge

    What is wrong with real world troll dealing with?

    An example I know of.

    Troll picks on hardcase.

    Hardcase finds trolls real ID

    Troll gets warning phonecall and his real ID spread over the afflicted sites.

    Troll stops trolling as his wife bollocks him.

    And the question is

    How the hell did he manage to get a wife!

  6. JP19

    "new offence of incitement to suicide (three years' jail)"

    Wow,

    So I guess telling a New Zealander to fuck off and die is now a bad idea despite there being at least 116 of them that ought to.

    1. Anonymous Coward
      Anonymous Coward

      Re: "new offence of incitement to suicide (three years' jail)"

      There aren't even 116 people in New Zealand, dumbass.

  7. Alan Brown Silver badge

    The most likely use of the law

    Is to go after someone who posts something damaging about a politician, even if it's true.

    Laudafinem.com has covered the gaping holes in the legislation already - http://laudafinem.com/2015/06/30/will-kiwis-watch-in-disbelief-as-contriversial-new-law-is-used-to-target-online-descent-expose-not-so-called-cyber-bullying/

    LF has its own agenda (and verbosity) but they have a point.

    "The fact is that under this new law most of the Roast Busters exposé could well have been covered up by the New Zealand police using the new “Harmful Digital Communications Act” to close down the growing online anger that surrounded the case, an anger that pushed both the police and government to confront the issue, in the process exposing the coverup – in fact the IPCA report on that case recommended strengthening existing laws, not the wholesale abrogation and criminalisation of free speech which the “Harmful Ditgital Communications Act 2013“ conceals."

    1. Youngone Silver badge
      Flame

      Re: The most likely use of the law

      You are correct. Silencing dissent is exactly what this law is for, and the almost complete lack of an opposition in parliament is enabling this sort of rubbish here in New Zealand.

      The Labour Party is supposed to lead the opposition in Parliament, but because they assume that they can sleepwalk to victory at some future election, they will then have need of these very same powers. That is why they come up with the limp-wristed response, then vote for the bill.

      W*nkers.

      There, I hope I have offended someone.

  8. ghebert001

    George Orwell Would Be Spinning In His Grave...

    This fascism is causing me serious emotional distress...can we get the members of parliament who enacted this bill thrown in jail then?

  9. Stevie

    Bah!

    One law to rule them all

    One law to enjoin them

    One law to boss them all

    And in the darkness annoy them

    In the land of Wellington where the shadows lie (almost as much as the politicians)

  10. Anonymous Coward
    Anonymous Coward

    and the feelings of politicians and their allies will be protected

    from evil cyber bullies saying terrible things about their skeevy contracts and dubious policies.

    "protection" means many things.

    Insulting yourself because words hurt too bad, leads to others being allowed to do the same. The problem is, "hurt" gets redefined too. A politician could be "offended" by "lies" as easily as a high school cheerleader. And which one do you think Law Enforcement will be brought in with the highest priority?

    More illusion of "safety" exchanged for "freedom" thanks to the hyperbolic "think of the children" types.

  11. Anon Adderlan
    FAIL

    Sticks and Stones

    For reference: http://www.legislation.govt.nz/bill/government/2013/0168/9.0/versions.aspx

    This bill defines 'harm' as 'serious emotional distress', 'digital communication' as 'any form of electronic communication' (which I guess in that case includes analog), and 'cyber bullying' as...oh wait, it doesn't mention that at all. There are way too many people who see any challenge to their worldview to be a personal threat for this law to work. Or maybe that's the point.

    And 'A digital communication should not denigrate an individual by reason of his or her colour, race, ethnic or national origins, religion, gender, sexual orientation, or disability.' Well guess which one you have a choice in? So you can't 'attack' someone because of what they believe, no matter how stupid or destructive. Complicated, because I consider religious folks who encourage others to treat women as property, believe the high rate of transgender suicides is due to regretting gender reassignment surgery, think sleeping with any race other than your own is bestiality, cut off certain parts of your genitals (and I'm talking FGM too), and prevent folks from buying beer on Sunday, to be exceedingly harmful, and I reserve the right to call them sanctimonious twats directly.

    What I DON'T reserve the right to do is form a campaign to get them banned from events having nothing to do with their beliefs, get them fired from their job, or arrested. And if what they say causes me emotional distress, then I don't have to listen. The only time I do is when it would cause either me or the people I care about physical or financial harm, and the law already has my back on that. This law however allows someone to be arrested over hurt feelings due to criticizing a belief system, and that's INCREDIBLY dangerous.

    But again, maybe that's the point.

  12. Anonymous Coward
    Anonymous Coward

    Trolls can't melt steel beams

    If trolls are so mean, why don't we just trap them in steel cages and pour jet fuel on them.

    You do know that jet fuel won't melt steel beams, right?

  13. Anonymous Coward
    Anonymous Coward

    Bad idea, folks.

    Is everyone in NZ comfortable with WHO gets to decide what is harmful or offensive?

    What if you disagree? Do you guys really want to go to the expense of a hearing and pay damages to someone who says they are hurt? How would one prove that they were? The perpetually offended are on a hair trigger these days, egged on by the social justice warriors.

    Religion can't be criticised? Why? So the followers aren't offended? This is just beyond ridiculous.

    This is a bad road to go down.

  14. Shovel

    What a Debbie Downer! I was hoping NZ had passed a law forbidding any more LOTR movies.

POST COMMENT House rules

Not a member of The Register? Create a new account here.

  • Enter your comment

  • Add an icon

Anonymous cowards cannot choose their icon

Other stories you might like