Well, it has been a week without any further developments. I have still not received ANY information about the complaint from Netsafe or the complainant about why they are complaining about the specific material. I have also not received any notice of complaint under section 24 of the Harmful Digital Communications Act 2015 despite the means to contact us being prominently displayed as Contact on every public page in the site.
To make it explicit, the details about how to comply with the requirements of the Act by any complainant or and authorised agent under the Act are now in the Contact page
If you are complaining or communicating about the Harmful Digital Communications Act of 2015, you MUST comply with the stringent provisions required by the act and this site. They are described in a separate page (click here).
That page “Contact for complaints and communications under the Harmful Digital Communications Act 2015” describes explicitly the procedure and information requirements that this will use and needs to process any complain or communication related to the Act.
Of particular note it defines the privacy requirements
For all complaints, communications and queries related to the Harmful Digital Communications Act 2015, contact me as the sysop of the site on my personal email address firstname.lastname@example.org
Warning: All communications passed about the Harmful Digital Communications Act 2015 to me are deemed to not be private communications by me. They may be used without reference to other parties at my discretion in public debate about the use of the Harmful Digital Communications Act 2015. In most cases personal information will be withheld unless it is deemed by me to be within the public’s need to know (see my note at the end of this page).
I have made this contact to be a personal one to me as the sysop of the site. This is to ensure that I can lodge criminal complaints against anyone who abuses the Act and its processes. Or who appears to be determined to abuse the process to cause us harm – which in the absence of any information about the complainant or why they are objecting to the specified content is what I think it going on with this complaint.
Repeated failures to comply with these reasonable limits will result in laying a personal complaint with the police of criminal nuisance against the perpetrator, and if required, a criminal private prosecution against any individual causing me a nuisance.
I am sure that the usual dirty politics operatives and hopefully Netsafe can be assured that I will do exactly what I say. I don’t tolerate repeated deliberate wasting of my time. If we have to push this to a criminal charge, then I will.
While the authorised agent under the Act has been granted immunity against civil actions, they are still liable for criminal actions. Rather than allowing political debate to be stifled under the misapplied application of this Act, I am happy to take direct legal action against individuals who misuse it. But if you have a legitimate complaint, then just be up front with it.
I see that Bomber over at The Daily Blog has had the same kind of issues with Netsafe attempting to gag any debate on the public transparency in the use of the Act. He appears to alluding to a same kind of political issue (dirty politics) – where the actors appear to be getting Netsafe to defend them from open public political debate. Or in a less charitable interpretation, it could be Netsafe wishing to avoid being seen to interfere in legitimate public political debate on a manner that violates the Bill Of Rights Act that they (and the courts) are meant to consider.
Meanwhile the government appears to be more interested in proclaiming the ‘success’ of the Act rather than its flaws. Politik reports in their email feed (I couldn’t see it online) what is presumably a press statement.. The early timing of which tends to display some concern about what has been going on. It has barely had enough time to get into action, let alone have any real consequences. But note the paucity of details – for instance what in this are the court orders which are the primary effective method in the Act.
Since coming into force the Act has resulted in:
132 criminal charges filed
77 criminal cases finalised
50 convictions and sentences
4 diversions completed
1 discharge without conviction
I’d point out that I know of exactly four actions under the Act at present. A failed attempt to get a court order by what appeared to be illegal deception “Judge scammed by a legal idiot and his pet pest” against another political website, a valid use of the act with regards to revenge porn “High Court upholds first appeal under Harmful Digital Communication Act”, and what so far appears to an two attempt to muzzle political discussion about dirty politics. Not a good public track record for spending millions of taxpayer dollars on.