I don't think that the bill needs changing. The bill doesn't need to exist in the first place.

What we need is freedom of speech.
But as with all things: with great power (and freedom of speech is a great power) comes great responsibilities. The rights of individuals must be protected and freedom of speech has and always had its limitations. These limitations need to be clearly defined and enforced.

The above is true, independent of the media used. If you yell across the school yard or post something on the school's blackboard, if you publish an article in a newspaper or express yourself in a tv show, if you write a blog or post a comment in facebook: if you express yourself so that the public can recognise it, you re responsible for the expression. It's all the same, regardless of the media.

It may be tasteless, it may be ugly; but it is covered by the freedom of speech unless certain limits are not violated. If these limits are unclear, they must be defined more clearly, but certainly these limits again apply to all expressions regardless of the media. Why, for heavens sake, would they need to be media specific?

This is only done to react to a vague feeling of unease of many for a new media, badly understood by many. This is populism. Because as a matter of fact there is nothing special about the internet. The laws apply as with any other media. For some people it might not feel that way, but that is a misconception.

Let's try out what happens if we want to make the same kind of media specific regulations for another
transport layer of expression, one that is old-school enough to be well known by the elderlies as well. Here comes the 'Harmful graffiti Bill':

a toilet wall comment should not disclose sensitive personal facts about an individual (Principle 1);

a toilet wall comment should not be threatening, intimidating, or menacing (Principle 2);

a toilet wall comment should not be grossly offensive to a reasonable person in the complainant's position (Principle 3);

a toilet wall comment should not be indecent or obscene (Principle 4);

a toilet wall comment should not be part of a pattern of conduct that constitutes harassment (Principle 5);

a toilet wall comment should not make a false allegation (Principle 6);

a toilet wall comment should not contain a matter that is published in breach of confidence (Principle 7);

a toilet wall comment should not incite or encourage anyone to send a message to a person with the intention of causing harm to that person (Principle 8);

a toilet wall comment should not incite or encourage another person to commit suicide (Principle 9);

a toilet wall comment should not denigrate a person by reason of his or her colour, race, ethnic or national origins, religion, gender, sexual orientation, or disability (Principle 10) (Part 1, Subpart 1, Clause 6).

All of the above is very well and I can agree with all of it. It should just never have been written, even more so with the intent of making it part of a law. It's just too specific and contained.

It all makes more sense if you replace 'a toilet wall comment' with 'any public expression of opinion'. But if you do that and read again, you will immediately recognise a bad smell, don't you? It just sounds a little harsh if your gossiping in the pub is in the realm. But that is very similar to what a facebook timeline is for many, too.

It is that smell of over-protective sentiment that we respond to that is not to be applied to the same degree in general.

That's really well laid out.

Comments and publication on the Internet are different from natter in the pub and scribbles on the toilet wall though because it's persistent, exposed to a wider audience, and often can't be scrubbed off by anyone but the author.
There's a marked difference between talking about someone at the local pub with a few people and publishing on Facebook for anyone and everyone to see for years to come.

That's why I made the comparison between internet publishing and print publishing. Anything published in a newspaper is persistent, exposed to a wider audience, and can't be scrubbed off, period. Worse, the contents of popular newspapers are generally assumed by their readers to be established fact, unlike a person's FB or Twitter feed, blog etc. Yet the powers that be have never seen the need for a Harmful Printed Communications Bill.

I agree with Hubat. If freedom of the press belongs to those who own one, and the ability to publish online gives everyone the equivalent of a press, then this bill is an attack on the freedom of the press.

http://m.stuff.co.nz/national/politics/9498712/Collins-in-Twitter-war

That's not doing it right either. :-/

@David: I disagree that we should allow e.g. any actions performed with the intention of causing harm to a person.
This is illegal and should be illegal.
And I would very much agree to the text in question if it would be announced as an appendix to the nettiquete.

I am opposing a law that explicitly expresses that some common laws also apply to online media as if they wouldn't already, together with all other legislation that applies to Aotearoa/New Zealand.

As an example of one of those changes to common laws, the pirate party doesn't want 'A person commits an offence who incites, counsels, or procures another person to commit suicide' to be culpable for manslaughter under the Crimes Act?

Craig: What is that in reply to? I wouldn't oppose that, given intent is still required.

I don't think Hubat McJuhes opposes that either, nor do I.
Simply opposing the Bill isn't constructive. Expressing points of concern, compromises to address them, and areas the Party does support would be.

I will be personally dissatisfied if there is nothing more than generalised opposition to the Bill, which will be interpreted as the Party opposing everything in it.
I'm not opposed to the Party making releases, even if I disagree with the content.

Laws against inciting suicide are legitimate, but should apply to any media, including spoken word, and thus do not belong in a Harmful DIGITAL Communications Bill. I feel I included these concerns with the statement, "If there are components of the Bill which are necessary, they should be made as amendments to the appropriate laws on libel, slander, stalking etc."

Just to clarify, what I've proposed here is position. If @craigmagee of anyone else has the time or inclination to analyse the bill in detail, and come up with a more nuanced policy, go for it.

Laws against inciting suicide are legitimate

I'm sceptical that is wise, it would severely limit free speech if it got out of hand.

Not to mention, is way out of line with norms for society (where it is quite usual for people to say "go fuck yourself", which while it is highly impolite, we certainly don't think it should be illegal)

The Harmful Digital Communications Bill is a little complicated. Not only is there the text in part one which is a lot to take in at once, part two has a raft of amendments to four significantly important Acts.

It's too much for a single Loomio thread, creating a sub-group to work in and breaking up the points is the most practical way I can think of to approach it.

Creating a subgroup for every piece of legislation we might want to examine can only result in a plethora of dead subgroups. What about creating a new discussion thread with the text of the Bill in the Context Box, so we can cut it up and comment the legal code? Then this thread can be used to continue with a more general discussion of the Bill and our position on it.

BTW Charlotte Dawson's corpse is being hauled through the mass media streets as a spokesmodel for laws against "cyberbullying" (ie allowing censorship).
http://thedailyblog.co.nz/2014/02/25/what-dawsons-death-tells-us-about-our-society

Now would be an excellent time for us to make a carefully worded media release against the HDCB.

BTW Did you guys know the Bill would create a Censorship... erm... Communications Tribunal where the state decides what online speech is acceptable?!?
http://techliberty.org.nz/powers-of-the-proposed-communications-tribunal/

http://www.stuff.co.nz/dominion-post/business/9908652/Chilling-muzzle-inherent-in-bill

The Harmful Digital Censorship Bill just became law. Who has time to write up and put out a press release pointing out how dangerous it is to pass an Act which makes "harmful" speech a criminal offence, punishable by jail time!?!

I think that there is an appropriate classical vocals track by Mozart called "Lech mich im Arsch." Which I will be linking in response to the act.

I just had a thought. All online advertising is "harmful digital communication":
* It's presence distracts people from the information they're actually looking for
* It presents exaggerated (if not entirely false) claims for the product or service being marketed
* It confuses producers, who find themselves responding to what the marketers demands, rather than what the market demands
* It's a form of propaganda intended to manipulate people into making decisions which are not in their best interests
* it's often wrapped up in software designed to track people, collect information about them without their permission etc

When the Harmful Digital Censorship Bill comes into effect, one form of protest could be a mass campaign of flooding their complaints systems with complaints about online advertising.

The EFF published a detailed critique of the government's new Censorship Act:
https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2015/07/nz-digital-communications-act-considered-very-harmful

Targeting advertisements sounds attractive. But if successful would only prove that the law would be useful at least in some ways :-0

What I would find more interesting would be to try to prove that you can silence unwanted speech indeed. Certainly there is a lot of politicians' talk that doesn't comply with the defined principles.

Let's image you could take down an interview of the NZ Herald with the Minister of Denial Tim Grosser where he once again said that in 2100 water levels will be risen by 28 cm and we will deal with that then.
Surely does such a statement of denial do harm to all the people who choose to believe this non-sense and stick happily with their bad habits as most of us do. This then harms the life expectation of our youngest.
So if that interview happens to be published online, it should be taken down, shouldn't it?

Would that be a nice campaign?
"Didn't like it? And Online? - TAKE IT DOWN!"

Standing on the street, asking people if they can recall something that they have recently read online and didn't like. If so, advise them right at the street on a laptop how to send a take-down notice. nothing to loose, no costs or consequences to worry about - but a chance of vengeance to gain, just for the fun of it.

DDOS 2.0

We need to make it clear though, in either case, that we are doing it in jest, and that our point is that the state must not have the power to censor unpopular or even inaccurate speech. Unpopular speech needs the right to "freedom of speech" more than the popular, and the way to deal with inaccurate speech is to use your own right to free speech to reply, not to censor things we may think are "wrong". The Censorship Act is dangerous, and must be repealed, see the EFF link for how it could be used by bullies instead of against them.

For me the most harmful aspect of this act is that it establish different legal situations for online and afk communication. Something that is legal outside of the computer becomes criminalised once put into digital form.

This is playing with the unease that some people feel in regards with all things computer - and trying turning it into fear. Cyber, cyber. Populism.

http://www.nzherald.co.nz/wairarapa-times-age/opinion/news/article.cfm?c_id=1503411&objectid=11495157

We have finally had some discussion, but too late in the media.