This is a law that will never help a single person, and eventually will be used and abused against people the state finds undesirable. Really sad to see freedom of speech being killed off yet again in an idiotic pursuit of an illusion of safety.
I don't think making it a specific crime is the way forward long term. As the article states, in most countries everything is already covered by existing legislation (and society's general view of common decency but that doesn't necessarily help in a court).<p>The problem is one of implementation. How do you gather proof/evidence, how do you prove <i>intent</i> beyond reasonable doubt, and how do you support the victims during and after. A fair amount of the existing problem is similar to bullying in other area: the victims being scared to speak out either just through fear of the perpetrators or through the thought that nothing can and/or will be done. And other key problem is people in law enforcement (from the cops on the street all the way up to the judges and legislators) and people in society's support structures (parents, teachers, councillors, and so forth) not understanding: being out of touch with the technology, or facets of modern culture (cyber-bullying is a lot more common in the young and many who where young 20 or more years ago, and I'm including myself there, don't quite understand those people), or often both.<p>Sometimes the more specific a crime the easier it is for a good legal team (or just a clever arsehole) to find loopholes that allow them to get away with things that are effectively the same thing but are not covered by the exact wording, so great care needs to be taken in drafting the law.<p>Having said that: making it a specific crime might be a very useful stop-gap measure though. It at least tells both the victims and those on the other side that the situation is being taken seriously, brings the matter to sharper focus for the implementers/enforcers of the law so they'll see the need to fill the knowledge/experience gap, and to an extent brings the issue to increased public attention (hopefully with similar effect where needed).
One of the few Members of Parliament opposed to this speaking against the bill: <a href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-5XZ7OZCzBY" rel="nofollow">https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-5XZ7OZCzBY</a><p>"We must do something, this bill is indeed something, therefore we must pass this bill"<p>There are already sufficient protections in common law against harmful speech and passing vague law that only applies to online speech just makes us look like idiots.
Background from an overseas New Zealander:<p>New Zealand's centre right National party under John Key has made a lot of concerning moves regarding civil liberties, censorship, and the internet. A couple examples:<p>Expanding the GCSB (NZ's NSA) to allow domestic spying <a href="http://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/news/article.cfm?c_id=1&objectid=11112152" rel="nofollow">http://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/news/article.cfm?c_id=1&objecti...</a><p>Kim Dotcom's shakedown <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kim_Dotcom#Arrest_and_extradition_proceedings" rel="nofollow">https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kim_Dotcom#Arrest_and_extradit...</a><p>I view this bill as another attempt to control speech online with "cyber bullying" being just a useful phrase to push this sort of legislation through..
So - according to the bill, anyone with a complaint has to send it to a delegated agency that will be responsible for assessing each complaint. It is there to screen for trivial cases, etc.<p>If there is cause, they can then send it off to a court which will then determine what is to happen. The court can refer it back to the agency for more attempts at mediation etc... before making a ruling.<p>These are all reasonable checks on balances from the point of view of ensuring that this is not abused to censor speech etc. The courts are even instructed to take account of the "intent" of the communicator. So it's not like the nutso feminist-left - with their "intent is not magic" belief - are driving this bill.<p>So from this point of view the bill is actually quite reasonable...<p>Of course, from another point of view - i.e. when you consider the sheer number of assholes on the internet, it remains completely insane. The stated intent of the bill is to provide timely redress to victims. Lol - when hell freezes over.<p>My prediction - The delegated agency is going to be woefully under-funded. As far as I can see in the legislation - it is actually toothless. Any enforcement has to come from the courts. So people will learn to ignore the agency... feed-backing more cases onto the courts which see their time getting taken up because people can't get along on the internet. edit: the problem being that people WILL submit frivolous cases. Lots of them.<p>Victims won't by-and-large get the timely redress promised - except for a couple of high profile cases that make it into the media. And this non-result will come at great expense.<p>But thanks for being the test case NZ... nothing like empirical confirmation of any point of view.
You can read the Act in full here:<p><a href="http://www.legislation.govt.nz/act/public/2015/0063/latest/whole.html#DLM5711810" rel="nofollow">http://www.legislation.govt.nz/act/public/2015/0063/latest/w...</a>
I really don't see this as being just another charge tacked onto the end after something terrible happens because of cyber bullying. The biggest issues with cyber bullying are with kids and teenagers, not trolls. I doubt kids have the foresight to care, and even then they're also (rightfully) treated differently by court systems, meaning that they know there are much lessened punishments even if it is brought up.
I've been bullied on the playground (not just by Xcode). Most of the physical bullying I've forgot. That sad there were some rally vicious assholes (later on probably ended up on a war crimes bench) that did psychological damage. What kids do to kids in these days is beyond belief. Younger sister having someone savvy in like most of the people here to give her advice not to take it seriously is not as common as we tend to bias here. Psychological bullying in gangs is worse than being beaten on the playground. Let's not get paranoid. This is New Zealand we speak about :) Do your homework.