****ing censorship? Harmful Digital Communications Bill

@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