Posts by Graeme Edgeler
Last ←Newer Page 1 2 3 4 5 Older→ First
-
Hard News: Media3: Where harm might fall, in reply to Rich of Observationz,
As far as I’m aware, nowhere in any NZ law does it say “except on the Internet”.
Not in those terms, but there are clearly laws you might think should apply to the Internet which do not, for example, the offence of "misuse of a telephone device". Why should something be illegal if sent as a phone or text message but not in an email?
-
Hard News: Media3: Where harm might fall, in reply to Russell Brown,
Going for a bike ride. Will try later.
Although I can largely answer now. There are clearly circumstances in which a low level Communications Tribunal will enable people to obtain a solution to a problem that they could not have obtained otherwise.
However using factual scenarios from the past where people have been (or could have been) prosecuted and in some cases actually ended up in prison as a reason to change the law is unlikely to win converts.
-
Hard News: Media3: Where harm might fall, in reply to Russell Brown,
But what about less extreme but still very harmful acts of communications bullying? Can they be dealt with adeqately under existing law? Genuinely just asking.
Happy to help. Would you like to pull a scenario or two from the Briefing Paper for me to address?
-
Hard News: Media3: Where harm might fall, in reply to Russell Brown,
According to John Burrows, the real cases brought to the review's attention included the case of a teenager unable to stop pictures of her being sexually violated distributed electronically, and actual threats accompanied by pictures of mutilated bodies . It's a more realistic discussion if you actually consider real harms.
Pictures of someone being sexually violated being shared on the Internet in such a manner are likely to be seen as encouraging rape. Distribution of these would be criminal, and punishable by 10 years' imprisonment. The Office of Film and Literature Classification, the Police, Customs, and the Department of Internal Affairs are fully equipped, to the best of my knowledge, to deal with objectionable publications which are online.
The making of threats of mutilation are similarly proscribed by the Crimes Act, and are punishable by 7 years' imprisonment. The Police, especially once the Search and Surveillance Act enters into force, are more than capable of prosecuting such crimes.
And now having looked at the reports descriptions of these events, if someone could point out how a Communications Tribunal could possibly help in either of the scenarios described, it would be appreciated.
-
Hard News: Media3: Where harm might fall, in reply to Thomas Beagle,
Do you believe that the principles of natural justice also guarantee a right to an appeal?
No.
-
Hard News: Media3: Where harm might fall, in reply to John Edwards,
Actually the Bill does require that the Tribunal comply with the principles of natural justice, which would require that affected parties be given an opportunity to be heard.
+1. There's also s 27 of the NZ Bill of Rights Act.
But the no appeal for defendants bit is exceedingly odd.
-
Hard News: Paying for what doesn't come…, in reply to Andrew Geddis,
I found this to be an interesting and thought provoking piece … until I read this bit. Then I fell over laughing and hurt my think bone too much to continue.
A better place because otherwise you’d be out on the streets fomenting something?
-
Legal Beagle: Strange bedfellows, in reply to Angus Robertson,
We have had plenty of referendums, they don't do anything. The politicians ignore the results.
There are non-binding referendums and binding referendums. I am proposing a binding referendum.
-
My first names are Graeme Kenneth.
Kenneth Grahame wrote The Wind in the Willows.
Coincidence? -
So I guess the question for everyone here is: are you fine with Parliament making changes to the thresholds, etc. without them going to a public vote?