Hacker News Reader

In your examples, you readily equivocate civil and criminal law. The punishments and standards of evidence differ quite a bit. You also reference US cases that most free speech advocates (including the ACLU) disagree with. Reams could be written teasing out details, but I'll skip over that and get to the core of my disagreement.

I really dislike framing in terms of "freedom of speech." Many of the first lions of free speech: John Milton, Thomas Paine, and John Stuart Mill... they framed it in terms of freedom of hearing. By silencing someone, you limit potential audiences and their right to hear. In this original framing, the rights of these listeners are crucial, not just those of the speaker. Yes, Sturgeon's law applies. Most speech is crap. But let readers and listeners decide for themselves what they should read or hear. Don't give a government body that power.

And honestly, is there any government body you would be willing to grant that power? The power of deciding what you could read or hear? Considering their typical level of competence, can you honestly say you'd be happy with your government being a filter for your senses? Would you be content letting them throw people in jail for nothing more than text typed on a keyboard? Maybe it's my American upbringing, but the concept seems absurd to me. Sticks and stones can break my bones, but... words can be a felony? What the hell?

Edit: I'm not sure how, but many readers seem to have misconstrued my comment as condoning threats. That is not the case. Everyone here agrees that threats to one's well-being are criminal and wrong. The law we are discussing restricts the exchange of ideas, albeit potentially crudely-formed ones. Let's not attack straw men.

> Sticks and stones can break my bones, but... words can be a felony?

I guess when people live in such fear from online bullying that they have to move house because of the rape and death threats they're receiving, it's a little more than "text typed on a keyboard".

It's not your American upbringing, it's your framing of the problem.

It really should go without saying, but rape and death threats are crimes. Nobody is saying they aren't.

New Zealand's new law isn't about criminalizing such (already illegal) threats. It's about making non-threats crimes. Under this law, half of the comments in this thread could be interpreted as illegal. Hell, I can't think of a comedian that couldn't be charged under this law. That's what I'm up-in-arms about.

Well... actually you are arguing that they aren't crimes. You are arguing that governments should not be given the power to limit what you see or hear. Threats fall under that umbrella.

You say 'let readers and listeners decide for themselves what they want to hear', but that is exactly the course of action of this legislation. It's not a proactive government censorship stopping any abuse from happening, but a post-facto avenue to pursue for readers and listeners who do feel abused. There is no 'right to hear' being removed here.

That's very hyperbolic. The law is about threats and abuse - and is actually fairly specific as to what that entails. No one in this thread - or any comedian for that matter - is trying to incite a specific reader to take his or her life. If they were then boom - if this is in NZ there is now a law that will get you locked up.

> No one in this thread - or any comedian for that matter - is trying to incite a specific reader to take his or her life.

"If you have something to say, here's what you do: You write it down on a piece of paper, you go out in the lobby, and then you go home and you kill yourself."

— Louis C.K. [1]

I and many others found Louis CK's performance hilarious, but what's stopping him from being locked up the next time he performs in New Zealand? It's only fame and prosecutorial discretion that stands between him and a prison sentence.

1. http://www.rollingstone.com/movies/news/how-louis-c-k-became...

What's stopping him from being locked up is that he is not attacking a specific individual, as the act clearly specifies he would need to for it to be a crime. He isn't pulling aside a member of his audience, then using email or social media in an attempt to get that person to kill themselves. That's what the law is there to prevent.

That and the fact that New Zealanders aren't fucking idiots. The law states 'reasonable person', not 'if the slightest offense is taken'. It's clearly part of an act, it's clearly not directed at anyone, and it's clearly not meant to be taken seriously.

While I don't want to disparage all New Zealanders, I'm quite certain there are enough idiotic, overbearing, or corrupt officials that this law will be abused. And I'd like to stake money on this claim.

I am willing to bet 1 bitcoin (≈265 USD), at even odds, that within a year we will see an article on the front page of HN showing abuses of the Harmful Digital Communications Bill. Specific abuses may include: corporate censorship, overreactions to jokes, or people jailed for offhand drunk-posting. There are a myriad of possibilities.

If this happens, you pay me one bitcoin. If this does not happen, I pay you one bitcoin. If you're interested in this bet (or terms similar to it), let me know and I would be happy to discuss details.

I should warn you: The history of these sorts of laws is pretty bad. For example, Malicious Communications Act[1] has been used in all kinds of ridiculous cases. People have been arrested for posting images as pedestrian as a burning poppy.[2]

1. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Malicious_Communications_Act_1...

2. http://www.theguardian.com/uk/2012/nov/12/kent-man-arrested-...

As other people have noted, Kiwiland is known for more lenient sentencing and doesn't generally throw people in jail over trivial things. It still suffers from the vicissitudes of any legal system - run by humans, they're not perfect - but jail time for 'drunk posting'?

Similarly, I don't like your mechanism for success - a mere article on the front page of HN. For $265, what's to stop you writing an article and submitting it yourself? Your profile page clearly indicates your current handle as being intentionally anonymous so comments can't be traced back to you personally. And if your problem is that the law will be abused, why do you have no qualms in taking any article as being written in good faith, no matter the author?

And, even if you can provide a single counter-example, well, welcome to law. Sometimes false positives happen. That people get falsely convicted of rape or murder laws don't mean that rape or murder laws are an affront to freedom and must be disposed of. Laws are sledgehammers, not scalpels, and coming up with single counter-examples is worthless.

I'm also not personally interested in BTC. It's a farce - it's fun to play with for some and that's cool, but it's never going to be a functional currency. As I don't really find it fun (friends are fans), I've never bothered to get set up properly with it.

To sum up: no, I don't take your bet.

Edit: Writing your own article would actually be worth $530, since that's the delta between paying out and collecting winnings.

> It's only fame and prosecutorial discretion that stands between him and a prison sentence.

That a complete misrepresentation of how this law works. If Louis C.K. created a digital communication which contravened Principle 9 ('do not incite others to commit suicide') [1] then the victim might complain to the Approved Agency, which is presently Netsafe NZ [2], who mediates between Louis C.K. and the complainant.

If mediation is unsuccessful and Netsafe believes it is warranted Louis C.K. could be referred to the District Court, who hears submissions and makes orders as it deems necessary per s 11 [3] including referring the complaint back to Netsafe for further mediation. If the Court makes an order (e.g., 'remove the communication') and Louis C.K. refuses to comply he may be fined, or at the extreme end be sentenced to six months imprisonment [4] which in New Zealand would be served as home detention.

The New Zealand justice system is typically fairly lenient and lacks most of the mandatory sentencing requirements of the U.S. justice system. The District Court would not impose any significant fine or home detention unless the offending was at the extreme end of the scale, e.g. Louis C.K. incited a specific vulnerable individual to commit suicide in front of a large audience and they subsequently attempted to do so.

There is a lot more than 'prosecutorial discretion' between Louis C.K. and a prison sentence. This law is far from perfect, and maybe it'd be better if it didn't exist at all, but it's not imposing the insane wholesale restrictions on free speech that is being suggested throughout this thread.

1. http://www.legislation.govt.nz/act/public/2015/0063/latest/w... 2. http://www.netsafe.org.nz/ 3. http://www.legislation.govt.nz/act/public/2015/0063/latest/w... 4. http://www.legislation.govt.nz/act/public/2015/0063/latest/w...

All of the examples you and many others in this thread are giving are already illegal, under currently existing laws, in most, if not all countries. Threatening people with violence, encouraging others to commit violence against other people, actually coming over and stalking people. All of those things are crimes already. There is no need to make another law that makes it illegal to do something that is already highly illegal.

Living in fear is soul destroying. It colours everything you do, everything you think. Every knock at the door provokes a horrible fear reaction. You can't think straight. You plan your life around your fear to an extent that, if it was alcohol or drugs, you'd be recognised as a serious addict and people would try to get you medical intervention.

Living in fear destroys lives. And for what? So some idiot sack of shit can feel like a big man for scaring people? Why exactly should that be permitted?

Would you be content letting them throw people in jail for nothing more than text typed on a keyboard?

a) This can be extremely deadly. Enough hate speech can lead to real violence. Europe knows this from horrible experience. A modern example: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Radio_T%C3%A9l%C3%A9vision_Lib...

b) Don't pretend that America doesn't have free speech restrictions in the legal system. The most egregious example is https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Food_libel_laws , but there are also plenty of national security related ones. Try sending some death threats to the President and see what happens.

c) We really need to distinguish between saying things to people which a third party doesn't want discussed (the freedom of hearing case) and saying things to someone which that person doesn't want to hear. I don't think you can invoke Mill to give you unlimited freedom to send death and rape threats to strangers on the internet.

> saying things to someone which that person doesn't want to hear.

You know you can put fingers in your ears, right?

This is the "if you didn't want to get abuse from white people you should have sat at the back of the bus" / "you should have known that being a prominent woman on twitter would get you daily rape threats" argument. As others are saying, it's not costless, in fact its quite damaging to the psyche.

Because you can't know, until communication starts, whether it's going to be vicious. And you can't walk around with your fingers in your ears all the time.

Some internet services get this, but it's awfully easy for people to generate new accounts to route abuse through.

We could do well to develop anti-abuse technology in the same mode as anti-spam.

> And you can't walk around with your fingers in your ears all the time.

I can only assume you have not talked with antivaxxers, climate change deniers or people taking their religion too seriously.

Whether insult hurts or not is your choice. If you have such weak control over your inner world - learn to not give a fuck. not that hard.

> Whether insult hurts or not is your choice.

This is nonsense. If you are subjected to continuous, vitriolic, realistic rape threats on Twitter then this is inevitably going to stress you and make you feel somewhat unhappy or unsafe. But if you are a 14-year-old, or otherwise particularly vulnerable, then they may cause acute depression or suicide.

This Act isn't about antivaxxers or climate change deniers. It is about revenge porn and vicious cyberbullying, and I am not prepared to stand up for either.

Whether insult hurts or not is your choice. If you have such weak control over your inner world - learn to not give a fuck. not that hard.

The problem here is that most people who suggest 'just ignore it' as a solution haven't ever faced the sort of abuse that the proposed law is designed to deal with. You're quite right that it's easy to ignore an insult. It's much harder to ignore a believable death or rape threat, racist remark, misogyny, etc. That is what you're suggesting people should 'learn to not give a fuck' about. As someone who believes quite strongly that we shouldn't just ignore those things and that we should actively try to stop them, I find your argument incomprehensible.

While ignoring a believable (whatever that means) death treat is probably hard, why put racism, misandry and misogeny in the same stuff - you are totally free to talk to the harassers back - find what makes them sensitive and make them hurt. You have the same tools as them. Make a psychological profile, find what makes them tick and talk back in a way to inflict maximum hurt feelz.

"Would you be content letting them throw people in jail for nothing more than text typed on a keyboard?"

Yes! Of course!

Your line of argument is exactly like "I didn't kill him. I just moved my hands which happened to hold a knife which happened to travel through his chest."

Outcome matters. Intent matters.

Deconstructing real actions until some supposedly bizarre conclusion is reached does not matter.

> You've never been free (in the specific sense of 'free' meaning 'a right protected by law') to lie about other people, to be abuse other people, to be obscene, to threaten other people, to copy other people's speech.

Obscenity is the easiest one in that list to argue ought be legal.

Obscenity in this context likely means obscenity AT someone. I.e. sending unsolicited naked pictures or revenge porn etc..

Why can't that be covered under normal harassment laws? Why do we need an entire new law, with very broad and vague definitions, to cover something that's clearly already covered by already existing laws.

The definitions are actually very narrow and specific if you read the text. And I imagine a specific law is necessary to clarify things for the justice system, who otherwise might not be sure whether such things are prosecutable when they occur via some new app or service online.

Most such laws were written before the explosion of social media, which is less than two decades old in the public mainstream.

Unfortunately the law provides no exemptions for media, or against public figures, and truth is no defense. All that is required is that you caused harm and it is found that you intended to.

So for example, exposing the corruption of a politician (online) may well be illegal under the act.

I guess I've always wondered where the line is. To me saying "FYAD" seems like essentially harmless flames. Whereas saying "I'm going to rape/kill you" seems like a threat. I guess it's just related to how I "grew up" online?

I don't consider being mean to people on the internet default worthy of any law or punishment. Telling someone "You're an idiot and I hope you die in a fire" is my internet given right, assuming the context of the comment is right (it's within the social norms for that board/forum/site/reddit/whatever). But this law makes no allowances for such things.

Twitter is weird, because there are no norms, no mods, no masters. In essence that's a large part of the problem. No filters. No choice of engagement.

> Telling someone "You're an idiot and I hope you die in a fire" is my internet given right,

How far do you take that right though? Does the person you're trying to say it to have to hear you, or are they allowed to block you? Are you allowed to set up multiple accounts to evade the block? Are you allowed to take the message to AFK-world - sending letters through the mail or telephoning your insults?

The Criado-Perez trolls who were jailed didn't just send a couple of messages. They bombarded Criado-Perez with hundreds of messages.

> threats that [Sorley] had sent, including "just got out of prison and would happily do more time to see you buried” and “Rape?! I'd do a lot worse things than rape you!!"

Here she talks about the type of messages she was getting.

http://www.theguardian.com/lifeandstyle/2013/aug/04/caroline...

Note that she says:

> She is still getting violent threats, and two people have now been arrested. When she was campaigning, she was getting hostile messages, she says, but they were relatively benign. "Get back to the kitchen, shut up, fuck off. That was just people being unpleasant and not liking feminists. But it was nothing that would have led me to report them to the police."

> Now, she is dealing with something altogether different. What kind of tweets has she received? "Gosh." She looks embarrassed. "So, for example, someone was talking about giving me a good smashing up the arse. Somebody said: 'All aboard the rape train.' Some guy tweeted another guy asking if he wanted to join in raping me." Then there were the death threats. "One was from a really bright guy who said: 'I've just got released from prison.'" She shows me her phone: "I'd do a lot worse than rape you. I've just got out of prison and would happily do more time to see you berried [sic]. #10feetunder." The tweet is signed Ayekayesa. There is another one, equally chilling. "I will find you, and you don't want to know what I will do when I do. You're pathetic. Kill yourself. Before I do. #Godie."

I hope you can see there's a difference between someone saying "FOAD" and someone sending hundreds of death and rape threats per day from multiple different accounts.

>I hope you can see there's a difference between someone saying "FYAD" and someone sending hundreds of death and rape threats per day from multiple different accounts.

I absolutely do - and I agree with basically everything you say. What I'm not sure about is where the law draws the line.

Twitter [social media] feels like a real problem for abuse, because instead of saying "anything goes, leave or stay at will" or moderating according to community rules, they claim no responsibility or interest and simply refer to the police.

I don't have answers, and I know defending my right to be a dick to someone for bad posting on some forum somewhere is somewhat pathetic. I just feel like "people could be fined or sent to prison for using deliberately harmful, threatening or offensive language" is dangerous. I'm pretty sure on the last one I've got some jail time coming - especially if the offence can be taken by someone to whom it isn't addressed...

Does a threatening message cause fear or alarm in the person it's aimed at? Would it cause fear and alarm in a reasonable person? Was it intended to do so?

These are all things that courts deal with every day with AFK verbal aggression.