A digital bill of rights

10 comments on “A digital bill of rights ”

• Comments are now closed

1. Disraeli Gladstone 1

   10 March 2014 at 3:14 pm

   http://norightturn.blogspot.co.nz/2014/03/labours-digital-bill-of-rights-isnt.html

   “It would also guarantee freedom of expression, thought, conscience and religion, while still outlawing hate speech.”

   “This sounds good – but its actually an erosion compared to what we have at present. Those freedoms, whether offline or on, are currently protected by the BORA. But hate speech isn’t outlawed in practical terms (there is a crime of inciting racial disharmony, but there was only a single prosecution under the 1971 Act, and the consensus now is that the BORA has made it almost impossible to prosecute). So that “still” hides a massive crackdown on online expression. It may be expression we don’t like, that we find hateful and offensive, but that doesn’t justify outlawing it, any more than it justifies outlawing rickrolling. Which means the answer to Labour’s proposal has to be “no thanks”. Protect freedom of speech unambiguously according to BORA standards or piss off.”

   Exactly right.

   There’s actually a pretty good connection here to the TPP. The TPP Agreement is free trade that is actually creating more restrictions. Labour’s Digital Bill of Rights is restricting rights we already have.

   Sigh.
   • mickysavage 1.1

     10 March 2014 at 3:26 pm

     I don’t agree. There is no absolute right of freedom of speech. The BORA says that “[e]veryone has the right to freedom of expression, including the freedom to seek, receive, and impart information and opinions of any kind in any form” but it is subject to section 5 which states “the rights and freedoms contained in this Bill of Rights may be subject only to such reasonable limits prescribed by law as can be demonstrably justified in a free and democratic society.” There are various offences against extreme speech such as section 4 of the Summary Offences Act 1981 (offensive language), and misuse of a telephone and in particular use of profane, indecent, or obscene language with intent to offend.
     • Disraeli Gladstone 1.1.1

       10 March 2014 at 4:06 pm

       I suppose it all comes down to how any potential legislation would be phrased. It’s workable. But I don’t think the exceptions to free speech are very commonly used (I may be wrong?) and re-legislating them in an online context sounds like it might open them up to abuse.

       If the legislation essentially goes “BORA’s position” that’s fine. But if they decide to actually include a new section on “hate speech” then I suspect that will go further than what we have currently.
2. Aww 2

   10 March 2014 at 4:27 pm

   This hasn’t been thought through properly. Firstly, some people are legally bared from accessing the internet (eg they have been caught trading objectionable images).

   There is a need to also specifiy when you have the right to access the internet – 2am in the morning?

   Also some people can’t access the internet from a free location such as a library due to mobility or confidentiality issues. And where I live in Wellington you only have limited access as only some sites are allowed. If you want to check your gmail you have to pay. So…you have the “right” to pay for internet access? Just as you do now?

   What about Work and Income who fight tooth and nail to avoid having internet included as part of a disability allowance? There is an expectation from Work and Income that the cost will be absorbed but core benefit rates haven’t risen to allow this and many dependent on benefits cannot afford smartphones to access free wifi.
   • karol 2.1

     10 March 2014 at 4:33 pm

     In Auckland Libraries everyone can access the internet free of charge, either via library computers or wifi. Printing costs. Yes, lack of privacy is an issue. Rules about not displaying x rated material in a public space apply.

     But Cunliffe also mentioned “people’s wifi network” I’m not sure if this could be accessed anywhere? And costs of the hardware for accessing wifi looks like an issue to me.
3. Psycho Milt 3

   10 March 2014 at 6:55 pm

   Guaranteeing freedom of expression, thought, conscience and religion while at the same time outlawing hate speech.

   Or, more accurately, “Rejecting any guarantee of freedom of expression.” Fucking Labour, always with the “outlawing hate speech.” You could kind of give them a grudging admiration if they at least had the courage of their convictions, but no – they want to outlaw speech they don’t like while at the same time claiming to guarantee freedom of expression. Fuck that – come back when you’ve made your minds up.
   • McFlock 3.1

     10 March 2014 at 7:01 pm

     Well, we have freedom of movement, but you’re not allowed to hit me.
     Why should you be allowed to tacitly or explicitly encourage other people to hit me?
     • Psycho Milt 3.1.1

       10 March 2014 at 7:18 pm

       Incitement to violence is covered under existing law – no “outlawing hate speech” is necessary to achieve it.
4. RedBaronCV 4

   10 March 2014 at 9:03 pm

   Why just the onselling of digital information? Time all information came with a restirction about selling it or passing it on. Time for an opt in regime for the consumer not an opt out one (if you can find the clause).
   Main hates:
   -power companies telling me that to help with my credit raing they are passing all my payment details onto someone?? Ignores the fact that the bulk of NZ don’t have a mortage and that information will be sold.
   -google street view = online burglary scoping.
   -booking a ticket , clicking no emails and then getting emails for so called service satisfaction survey.
   – unlisted numbers getting marketing survey calls.
   – employment testing where the company hands over your address and email and then you have to sign away all rights to your information to the service provider.
   -insufficent retrictions on keeping CV’s etc, recruitment companies sold several times data in hands of who knows.
   – bank documents where the right to privacy is so embedded that it is not possible to say “yes” or “no” without triggering a refusal of service.
5. Rich 5

   11 March 2014 at 12:29 pm

   if a local blogger who claims popularity by running continuous click bait interspersed with the odd pit of National Research sourced scandal steps way out of line then there should be some remedy

   An increased sentence for revealing the identity of child rape victims might be the simplest solution. If he’d got five years inside rather than a $6k fine, that’d have put an end to his blogging.

• Comments are now closed

• Log in
• Donate
• Contribute post

• Articles RSS