"One wonders whether the point of the Harmful Digital Communications Act, in the view of some MPs, is to silence critics.”
“New Zealand MPs are so keen to be seen to be 'doing something' about cyber-bullying that they are about to pass a poor piece of law that will do something terrible. If the Harmful Digital Communications Bill passes, MPs who feel sad because of a media story can have the publisher jailed.”
“[Given] that defamation would [otherwise] have applied. One wonders whether the point of the [Harmful Digitical Communications] Bill, in the view of some MPs, was to silence critics.”
2 comments:
The clue is in the ridiculous name of the Act. It is NOT about ensuring rights protected around non-digital communications are also protected digitally, but being seen to do something about obnoxious behaviour. Much easier to do this than address the culture, values and philosophy which drives this behaviour, particularly in the institutions the state is all too keen to largely monopolise (such as education).
David Farrar has on his blog a Mayor trying to use it to silence two critics. A very good example of the "unintended" consequences of the legislation.
Post a Comment