Hard News: We are all Twitter
80 Responses
First ←Older Page 1 2 3 4 Newer→ Last
-
Graeme, how much ability would the NZ authorities have to seek information on Twitter users in the US?
I know extradition demands a similar offence in both jurisdictions, so (even if electoral offences were extraditable) they wouldn’t be able to because the US had no restrictions on polling day propaganda (not to mention that any such restrictions would be unconstitutional).
Does that mean that the NZ government couldn’t get a court order against Twitter?
(EDIT: The UK case was libel, which of course exists in US law. But the electoral laws certainly don't take similar forms. "No propaganda on polling day" is pretty much peculiar to NZ)
-
Graeme Edgeler, in reply to
I didn’t say it was hard. I said it cost money, which the Electoral Commission is unlikely to have. They’ll be funded for an expected level of electoral crime. But if there are thousands of cases, then they won’t be able to enforce the law.
The job of enforcing this lies with the police, to whom the Electoral Commission refers these matters: yo, police, Twitter account "NZerforNZFirst" tweeted "don't fuget to vot winstin da man" at 11am on polling day, can you look into it? That sort of thing.
-
Graeme Edgeler, in reply to
Does that mean that the NZ government couldn’t get a court order against Twitter?
I don't want to be too definitive (not knowing US law as well as one might), but yes.
Even if Twitter was based in New Zealand they couldn't get the information, unless Twitter volunteered it.
-
Russell Brown, in reply to
Graeme, how much ability would the NZ authorities have to seek information on Twitter users in the US?
Rick’s comment above suggests that the Norwich Pharmacal rule means they could. Whether they would is another matter.
-
Russell Brown, in reply to
The job of enforcing this lies with the police, to whom the Electoral Commission refers these matters: yo, police, Twitter account “NZerforNZFirst” tweeted “don’t fuget to vot winstin da man” at 11am on polling day, can you look into it? That sort of thing.
So 10,000 people could self-report? Not saying they should, but presumably they could.
-
Graeme Edgeler, in reply to
Rick’s comment above suggests that the Norwich Pharmacal rule means they could. Whether they would is another matter.
That's a civil matter. We're talking about the criminal jurisdiction here.
-
Graeme Edgeler, in reply to
So 10,000 people could self-report? Not saying they should, but presumably they could.
You could report 10,000 people :-)
-
Kind of difficult to figure out who would be harmed by twittering on election day.
The law itself seems to imply that last minute electioneering is unfair in some mysterious way, to whom?
Quite. The law is bordering on the superstitious and clearly lacks the spokes to roll in the 21st century, do away with the law, problem solved.
-
Sacha, in reply to
do away with the law, problem solved
You've been living in China too long, sir.
-
Russell Brown, in reply to
You could report 10,000 people :-)
That sounds like a lot of work.
-
How did West Ham go this season?
Finished bottom and relegated.
I know. I just wanted Pete to say it :-)
Which of the stages of grief is delusional amnesia? :)
-
nzlemming, in reply to
Which of the stages of grief is delusional amnesia?
There's a special 8th Stage just for West Ham supporters
-
chris, in reply to
You’ve been living in China too long, sir.
That's beside the point Sacha ; ) There are countless democracies without this kind of law. When we take a macro view of our own, who's to say the system is any fairer with this anachronism. My main peeve with it is that it implies that New Zealanders are inherently fools, gullible and easily swayed off an opinion by any old gambit, which A; I've found not to be the case, and B; is not a lot to live up to.
To laud such a law is almost to deny that people possess the intelligence to vote responsibly. If you believe people lack the intelligence to vote responsibly, then why live in a democracy?
The most ludicrous aspect being the legal perception that these fools are most at risk of stupidity in that minuscule window that is 24 hours surrounding an election.
Which in its way begets this kind of thought process (joke or not):
You could report 10,000 people :-)
One hopes at some future point, good sense will prevail.
-
Graeme Edgeler, in reply to
My main peeve with it is that it implies that New Zealanders are inherently fools, gullible and easily swayed off an opinion by any old gambit, which A; I’ve found not to be the case, and B; is not a lot to live up to.
To laud such a law is almost to deny that people possess the intelligence to vote responsibly. If you believe people lack the intelligence to vote responsibly, then why live in a democracy?
The most ludicrous aspect being the legal perception that these fools are most at risk of stupidity in that minuscule window that is 24 hours surrounding an election.
That is not what it is about. I agree that that could be a reason why someone might want or support such a law, however it is not the reason why we have such a law.
We have this law because:
* politicians can stuff off - today is about us the voters;
* we want people to be able to vote without being harassed by people outside polling places who might scare them off: can't be bothered going through all that, etc;
* we actually like the serenity - it feels like democracy;It's not about twitter. This law covers twitter because it was written broadly enough that it would, back when it was written ages ago.
-
Martin Lindberg, in reply to
we want people to be able to vote without being harassed by people outside polling places who might scare them off: can’t be bothered going through all that, etc;
Does that actually happen everywhere else?
-
Sacha, in reply to
we actually like the serenity
+1
-
chris, in reply to
who might scare them off:
Again, regardless of how much I enjoyed your post in 2008, it seems the case invariably necessitates recourse to them….these…those… weak willed straw men and lasses. Considering our votes are confidential, if someone is campaigning for a particular candidate, how would it be in their interests to scare anyone off voting?
Furthermore, what would scare you off voting Graeme?
If serenity is the seller, I would suggest posting a special vote and a day trip in your national park of choice.
-
recordari, in reply to
I recommend a postal vote?
When voters go postal, we're really in trouble.
-
Sorry, I edited, recordari… I'll STFU.
-
nzlemming, in reply to
Does that actually happen everywhere else?
Not everywhere, but it does happen. The hard thing is to draw the line between advertising and coercion. So, the logic goes, if you disallow advertising you'll make coercion harder too. Also, as "Gandalf" noted in the Harold comments yesterday:
There should be no electioneering on election day. If we remove all restrictions on election day advertising you will get massive inflammatory lying rhetoric from large organised groups, a real problem as there is no time for a right of reply. The whole election will become a total farce, and a shouting competition
Idiot/Savant had a nice piece on this the other day as well.
-
Martin Lindberg, in reply to
It seems to me that all these arguments against electioneering on election day are based on some pretty elaborate strawmen. I suppose I don't really care either way, but we are talking about a law that could fine you $20,000 for an indiscreet tweet or facebook status. Man, you must be doing something pretty damn serious.
Of course, countries are free to come up with any laws they feel like. But a law is a law is a law. I can't chose which ones I feel like complying with and which ones I can ignore because they are just plain silly. I believe most other countries manage just fine with party officials handing out voting papers while wearing a party button without democracy going to hell in a hand basket.
-
Craig Ranapia, in reply to
We have this law because:
* politicians can stuff off – today is about us the voters;
* we want people to be able to vote without being harassed by people outside polling places who might scare them off: can’t be bothered going through all that, etc;
* we actually like the serenity – it feels like democracy;Quite – and I have friends in Australia who find being (legally) harassed by party hacks outside polling places singularly unpleasant. I’ve done a fair amount of scrutineering over the years, and it’s actually quite pleasant having Election Day being one where folks like me just STFU, smile sweetly and stay the hell out of the way of the people who really matter. We’ve had a whole campaign to hoot, holler and make ding-dongs of ourselves. :)
I suppose I don’t really care either way, but we are talking about a law that could fine you $20,000 for an indiscreet tweet or facebook status. Man, you must be doing something pretty damn serious.
FFS, Martin, we're not talking rocket science here. "Indiscreet" is how you describe someone letting off an arse-cracker in church, not flouting a law that's neither complex nor terribly onerous.
-
Steve Parks, in reply to
If we remove all restrictions on election day advertising you will get massive inflammatory lying rhetoric from large organised groups, a real problem as there is no time for a right of reply.
Why wouldn't they just move that rhetoric to the day before, then. There would still be no right of reply, as no one could respond on election day.
-
Craig Ranapia, in reply to
Why wouldn’t they just move that rhetoric to the day before, then. There would still be no right of reply, as no one could respond on election day.
Well, quite -- I don't think it was a coincidence that Jim Bolger waited until his last television interview of the campaign to fuck over Mark Thomas. (Yes, I'm still bitter. No, I'm not going to get over it.)
-
Graeme Edgeler, in reply to
So, the logic goes, if you disallow advertising you’ll make coercion harder too. Also, as “Gandalf” noted in the Harold comments yesterday:
There should be no electioneering on election day. If we remove all restrictions on election day advertising you will get massive inflammatory lying rhetoric from large organised groups, a real problem as there is no time for a right of reply.
It seems to me that all these arguments against electioneering on election day are based on some pretty elaborate strawmen. I suppose I don’t really care either way, but we are talking about a law that could fine you $20,000 for an indiscreet tweet or facebook status. Man, you must be doing something pretty damn serious.
Well, if you removed all restrictions, then that might happen, but we wouldn't. The law makes it a corrupt practice (punishable by two years' prison) to publish a false statement with the intention of influencing voters any time before the close of the poll, or in the preceding two days.
I don't think the sky will fall if we abandon this rule; I'm just telling people why we adopted it, why we've kept it (as well as some reasons that aren't behind it); it's entirely possible some people will not consider them particular convincing.
Also. The maximum possible fine, for the absolute worst offending against this law is $20,000. We are not talking about a law that can see you fined $20,000 for tweeting. Factually and legally that is impossible.
Post your response…
This topic is closed.