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. :-/