Posts by Thomas Beagle
Last ←Newer Page 1 2 3 4 5 Older→ First
-
Hard News: Media3: Where harm might fall, in reply to Rich of Observationz,
Rich - from the Law Commissions report:
"And in a number of American states there are statutes which make it an offence to send electronic communications without legitimate purpose which would cause a reasonable person to suffer substantial emotional distress." Footnote 159.
Just saying!
-
Hard News: Media3: Where harm might fall, in reply to Russell Brown,
To my mind the thrust of the Communications Tribunal seems to be more towards takedowns and forbidding of further similar communications rather than findings of fact or similar responses.
There's also a strong punitive element, with anyone disobeying such an order being up for a criminal conviction with a fine of up to $5000 and a jail term of up to three months.
-
Hard News: Media3: Where harm might fall, in reply to John Edwards,
Interesting comment about the Tribunal being required to comply with the "principles of natural justice" - but how strong is that requirement?
I would have thought that being able to defend yourself from accusations was important enough that it should have been mentioned explicitly (with possible exceptions when the defendant can't be identified and so on).
Do you believe that the principles of natural justice also guarantee a right to an appeal? What else can we read into it?
-
While we're talking about principle 10 - "A communication should not denigrate a person by reason of his or her colour, race, ethnic or national origins, religion, ethical belief, gender, sexual orientation, or disability."
I believe that the Human Rights Act s21 covers discrimination based on those (as well as age, family status, political opinion and employment status).
However, when it comes to limiting speech, it seems to only cover (s61) "words likely to excite hostility against or bring into contempt any group of persons in or who may be coming to New Zealand on the ground of the colour, race, or ethnic or national origins of that group of persons."
Does anyone know if there is any other part of the Human Rights Act or any other Act that limits denigrating speech based on religion, ethical belief, gender, sexual orientation or disability?
-
There are actually some clear practical differences. It’s vastly easier to go to an outdoor advertising company and complain you’re being defamed on a billboard than to remonstrate with a vindictive internet commenter. And a billboard doesn’t replicate all over town the way an offensive communication might replicate across the internet.
There’s two points I’d like to make in response to this paragraph:
1. It’s not just defamation. It’s also other communications that cause significant emotional distress to the recipient (even if they’re not aimed at them). i.e. it might be perfectly legal on the billboard but could still be taken down online by order of the Comms Tribunal.
After all they also include “denigrating people by reason of his or her religion or ethical beliefs”.
2. A billboard may not replicate – but if something has “replicated across the internet” do you think that there is any chance that any orders of the Comms Tribunal will be able to take it down?
-
I think Nat's criticism is wrong on a number of counts.
Firstly, I think the media were correct to draw the parallels between Judge Harvey's comments about the US govt's attitude to copyright in the TPP and the case that he is currently judging which is... about the US govt and copyright. Indeed, the connection is so strong that they'd be failing in their job if they didn't mention it.
Secondly, I think Judge Harvey was foolish to make that comment considering the case he was assigned to. Isn't "not making public comment about one side of a case you're considering" one of the more obvious rules for judges?
Thirdly, Nat conflates judges and politicians with "Do we want our judiciary engaging in discussions? Do we want politicians coming down from the Beehive to actually talk to us about what they think, and learn from us in an honest exchange of views?"
Yes we do want and expect politicians to talk to us, it's part of their job. And if they say silly things while they're talking to us, we're going to report them and ask them to justify themselves.
However, politicians and judges have very different roles in our society. I do appreciate that Judge Harvey engages with the community, but I value judges being both impartial and being seen to be impartial even more. And if judges do engage and are foolish enough to say silly things, it's entirely reasonable to report them.
In summary: It's sad that Judge Harvey won't be on this case because he was probably the best person to judge it, but it was his fault not that of the media.
-
Hard News: News media meets new media:…, in reply to James Butler,
I'd say that the Law Commission report on Search & Surveillance was pretty damn bad.
Then there was the bit in the suppression review where they wanted to make ISPs responsible for blocking access to breaches of suppression orders.
-
Earthquake or #eqnz
Because... well, it's obvious really.
-
Dear James Butler. You may think you want to read The Sparrow but, trust me, you don't. Yes, thank you, the therapy helped and I now feel a lot better.
As for books and me, I read as much as I ever did, but nowadays it tends to be websites rather than books...
-
Muse: Reel Life: Pliéing Turkey, in reply to Craig Ranapia,
I also must compliment you on your use of:
In an earlier draft of this review, I complained that...
Referring to an earlier version of your own work in the very work you're referring to is... somewhere between brilliant and the wankiest thing I've ever read. :)
That said, I do like your article and agree that Black Swan was basically lacking the "why should I care about this" factor.