Posts by Russell Brown
-
Hard News: Media3: Where harm might fall, in reply to Emma Hart,
That’s often how harassment works: every individual statement is just a bit dodgy, but you’re finding them in your message box every day.
That’s essentially Martin Cocker of Netsafe’s response to the “billboard” argument:
It is very difficult to put up billboards everywhere somebody goes. It is extremely easy to follow people with technology. You can text them, blog about them, post to social media, share pictures and constantly bombard them. All for free from the comfort of your armchair.
That persistent harassment is what makes digital bullying different from traditional bullying. It also differentiates online abuse from billboard based abuse.
-
One case I’ve been thinking about is that of Kay Goodger, a civil servant who was the subject of a series of false claims in a swivel-eyed Investigate magazine story about an alleged feminist-communist conspiracy to destroy the New Zealand family.
The Herald retracted its publication of the same claims, but Wishart’s swill is still on the internet for anyone to find. It clearly wasn’t worth Goodger’s while to take defamation action, but it seems unfair to her that false, high-Googling claims about her remain on the internet.
I tried to address this by firmly walking Wishart through his falsehoods in a Kiwiblog thread, which hopefully did some good. But you’ll note that Wishart’s response was to start issuing defamation threats against me. You’d have to guess the likes of him might be eager users of a Tribunal when they’re criticsed.
So … it’s complicated*.
*And anyone who says different is clearly an evil piece of work who is proven to fellate goats ;-)
-
Hard News: Media3: Where harm might fall, in reply to Allan Moyle,
Principle 7: A communication should not contain a matter that is published in breach of confidence.
Does this have any impact in relation to “whsitleblower” laws ?
That's a very good question.
-
Hard News: Media3: Where harm might fall, in reply to Rich of Observationz,
People behave in may ways that one might consider less than desirable.
I personally have a virulent objection to the unnecessary use of horns in the Mt Vic tunnel. Oh, and to people claiming superior knowledge of a wide variety of topics with no ascertainable basis. Not to mention dressing in a replica of your favourite footballer/cyclist/wrestlers uniform when out and about in public.
However, I don’t think those things should be proscribed with the full force of law.
No one does. And I’m not sure if drawing flippant equivalences is a useful form of argument.
According to John Burrows, the real cases brought to the review’s attention included the case of a teenager unable to stop pictures of her being sexually violated distributed electronically, and actual threats accompanied by pictures of mutilated bodies . It’s a more realistic discussion if you actually consider real harms.
I’m not comfortable with what the Commission has come up with. But I wasn’t too keen on Thomas’s dismissive use of the word “excitable” either. In at least a proportion of cases, real, lasting harm is caused to people. In others, we need to ask if it’s fair to require individuals to undergo the ordeal and huge expense of defamation proceedings in order to have clearly defamatory material stopped.
My view is that the finding-of-fact role is the most useful role a Tribunal could play, and one less likely to result in perverse outcomes. You could certainly argue that in the paper as it stands, the cure might be worse than the disease. But that’s not the same as there being no problem to consider.
-
Okay, this is troubling. From a newly-updated post on the TechLiberty site:
There is no requirement for the defendant to be heard or to have a chance to put their case forward.
The complainant can appeal a decision to an Appeal Tribunal (made up of two District Court judges).
The defendant has no opportunity to appeal any decision, nor do other possible targets of an order (the ISP, webhost or 'any other person').
They're pretty much setting things up for vexatious use of the Tribunal by the looks of this.
-
Hard News: Paying for what doesn't come…, in reply to BenWilson,
I’m pretty sure there are multiple programs available on Android that do this with internet radio stations.
Stream-ripping. I think I'd object to this on the basis that it would serve to validate the copyright owners' perpetual belief that people actually bother doing this :-)
-
Hard News: Paying for what doesn't come…, in reply to Yamis,
I was thinking a bit a while back about whether there will ever be something similar to MYSKY developed for radio.
To an extent, there is already something just like that. It’s called … MySky.
Sky carries the two Radio NZ stations, Kiwi and Tahu FM. You can record them, although they make you do it manually.
Freeview carries the Radio NZ stations and Base FM and recording looks easier on our Freeview PVR.
But yeah, there isn’t a comprehensive solution and if there was one, Rianz would probably have a panic attack about “stream-ripping” or something.
-
Hard News: Friday music: Worst DJ ever, in reply to Kyle Matthews,
That Public Enemy track is fantastic. Thanks Russell.
Last night. Two of four family members out. The other at the far end of the house, door shut.
Dad tidies the kitchen. And plays that track LOUDLY AND REPEATEDLY.
-
Hard News: And so it begins, in reply to Allan Moyle,
re Education Counts – is the same platform that Primary School National Standards data will come to in future ?
If I heard the news reports right, yes.
-
Hard News: Paying for what doesn't come…, in reply to Peter Griffin,
One of the things that a few journos have missed in the wake of Bernard’s announcement is that it is a collaborative thing with the mainstream media, not a competitive thing – they shouldn’t feel threatened.
I strongly agree.