I read this yesterday and it chilled me. I live in a small country, where everyone knows everyone else, and here I try to shut down trolls (though they do provide free entertainment) and defend the right to say what you think. It is a balance, and it is one that is fairly self regulated. If you get too vexatious, the site owner bans you, for the noise is overwhelming the signal.

But there is a cyberbullying act going through our parliament. It will pass. It was based on a series of fairly crude social media discussions of young women (the Roastbusters) and the horror from parents that these young, marginalized men could not be shut away in some prison because they mocked the women they had seduced. Bad, caddish behaviour. But criminal? A reason to censor and regulate speech? David Seymour of ACT has spoken our on this issue, wisely and well.

I also have wider concerns about the Harmful Digital Communications Bill. In particular the effect the ten communications principles, the Approved Agency, and District Court takedown orders will have on Free Speech – a cornerstone of any free society. Our rights are being traded away in this Bill.

Yet, few have even seen the ten vague ‘be nice’ communications principles – principles which might be appropriate if we were about to embark on a school camp, but not written into law. They are listed at the end of this paper.

These principles tell us it is wrong to disclose sensitive personal facts about another individual, to be indecent or obscene, or that you should not harass another individual. It requires only one principle to be breached for you to be reported to the Approved Agency. The next stop could be the District Court, facing a take-down order. Add the intention to cause harm, and actual harm, and you are approaching criminal territory – with the threat of up to 2 years in prison.

Imagine how easily these principles could be inadvertently broken by tweets, online newspaper articles, blogs, emails, posts on Facebook, or comments on websites.

It is also easy to see how the Harmful Digital Communications Bill could itself be used to bully people or the media into taking down legitimate material, especially when they are threatened with the time and process of the district court process.

Well, what should we do? Speak freely. Risk that we will break the communications principles[1]. Call out errors. This will probably offend people, but some people need to be offended. Because if they are not called on their errors and sins — even though we ourselves have enough sins of our own — we are not allowing them a chance to correct. Their souls are worth more than our concerns about fleeting feelings.

We have an example of Stephen. He was not nice. And he died for it.

“Now when forty years had passed, an angel appeared to him in the wilderness of Mount Sinai, in a flame of fire in a bush. When Moses saw it, he was amazed at the sight, and as he drew near to look, there came the voice of the Lord: ‘I am the God of your fathers, the God of Abraham and of Isaac and of Jacob.’ And Moses trembled and did not dare to look. Then the Lord said to him, ‘Take off the sandals from your feet, for the place where you are standing is holy ground. I have surely seen the affliction of my people who are in Egypt, and have heard their groaning, and I have come down to deliver them. And now come, I will send you to Egypt.’

“This Moses, whom they rejected, saying, ‘Who made you a ruler and a judge?’—this man God sent as both ruler and redeemer by the hand of the angel who appeared to him in the bush. This man led them out, performing wonders and signs in Egypt and at the Red Sea and in the wilderness for forty years. This is the Moses who said to the Israelites, ‘God will raise up for you a prophet like me from your brothers.’ This is the one who was in the congregation in the wilderness with the angel who spoke to him at Mount Sinai, and with our fathers. He received living oracles to give to us. Our fathers refused to obey him, but thrust him aside, and in their hearts they turned to Egypt, saying to Aaron, ‘Make for us gods who will go before us. As for this Moses who led us out from the land of Egypt, we do not know what has become of him.’ And they made a calf in those days, and offered a sacrifice to the idol and were rejoicing in the works of their hands. But God turned away and gave them over to worship the host of heaven, as it is written in the book of the prophets:

“‘Did you bring to me slain beasts and sacrifices,
during the forty years in the wilderness, O house of Israel?
You took up the tent of Moloch
and the star of your god Rephan,
the images that you made to worship;
and I will send you into exile beyond Babylon.’

(Acts 7:30-43 ESV)

For those who don’t have much background, the worship of Moloch involved infanticide, or child sacrifice. It was anathema to the Jews. With good reason. Most commentators note that Rephan is an allusion to the Septuagint version of Amos 5:26 which reads. (NASB — which uses the Hebrew name, not the Greek one).

“You also carried along Sikkuth your king and Kiyyun, your images, the star of your gods which you made for yourselves.

So he has accused the council of being descended from those who worshipped the stars and killing their children. As did the Kings of Israel. This is not that polite, and that is before he gets to the end of his speech.

This would break this principle: I can see the SJW trolls complaining about this discussion. Because Stephen denigrates religious leaders. As he should have, but the regulators have this principle.

A digital communication should not denigrate an individual by reason of his or her colour, race, ethnic or national origins, religion, gender, sexual orientation, or disability.

Please note that this bill is not yet passed. But it is dangerous.

While the issues with the Bill render it ineffective at dealing with cyber-harm, there are also serious issues with the Bill over-reaching, and failing to protect the rights and freedoms of individuals and online content hosts.

The lack of defences in the Bill is a key cause of this danger. The Bill does not include any of the defences available under the current, equivalent laws. This includes truth, satire, political opinion, public interest, consent, honest opinion and lawful purpose.

The Bill has the potential to criminalise children for behaviour which is dealt with informally and through education offline.

The complaints process is poorly drafted and may cause legitimate complaints to fall through the gaps, while frivolous or vexatious complaints reach the District Court. The regime also unnecessarily replicates existing law without providing for any of its defences.

This site is staying up. I consider it is quite legitimate to discuss theology. I have opinions about our current society, and the Bible should remain our guide. I will have to be careful in my phrasing of some things.

But God forbid that we cannot preach the gospel because we may offend a Muslim or a Satanist. And that is what this may lead to. One hopes that the NZ district courts, who have no patience for the legal games practised in the USA, have more sense than the fools we have in our legislative chamber.

But pray for us. NZ has avoided the Human Rights Tribunal Kangaroo Courts until now, but this looks worse than them.

_______________
I have no issue with the principles as etiquette but the last: I don’t want to make offending people a crime. In NZ it soon will be.

The Bill’s 10 communication principles:

A digital communication should not disclose sensitive personal facts about an individual.
A digital communication should not be threatening, intimidating, or menacing.
A digital communication should not be grossly offensive to a reasonable person in the position of the affected individual.
A digital communication should not be indecent or obscene.
A digital communication should not be used to harass an individual.
A digital communication should not make a false allegation.
A digital communication should not contain a matter that is published in breach of confidence.
A digital communication should not incite or encourage anyone to send a message to an individual for the purpose of causing harm to the individual.
A digital communication should not incite or encourage an individual to commit suicide.
A digital communication should not denigrate an individual by reason of his or her colour, race, ethnic or national origins, religion, gender, sexual orientation, or disability.