The tribunal is likely to take into account the agency’s determination and the reasons for it ĥ.
These include investigation and mediation. Show that you’ve referred the matter to an “approved agency” (the Law Commission recommends Netsafe) first, and it has considered exercising its functions first. Show that you’ve pursued all reasonable other avenues first (this is in the Law Commission’s report, but not explicitly in the draft legislation) Ĥ. Show that this breach has caused you – the victim – “significant harm” ģ. Show that one of the 10 principles has been breached (eg someone’s published a false allegation, a private fact, a threat, etc: these are designed to reflect the existing law) Ģ. To get yourself a take-down order from the communications tribunal, you’re going to have to do all of the following things:ġ. That’s vastly overstating its likely impact. For example, Idiot/Savant from NoRightTurn asserts that the proposal is simply a “heckler’s veto”, meaning that anyone merely has to object in order to have something removed. “It’s a general censorship body”! For some people, the tribunal seems to loom as something of a censorship juggernaut, bestriding NZ’s internet landscape pulverising innocent articles and comments. I want to deal with some of the objections I see as misguided before dealing with my own (much better directed!) concerns, in a later post. If you think a tribunal with powers to issue take-down notices is a dumb idea, then what’s your alternative? Just putting up with photos of a kid being bullied being posted on Facebook? The Law Commission spends two chapters marshalling the evidence of harm and explaining why existing remedies aren’t adequate to address it.
French montana excuse my french zip vk how to#
But if we accept that there are real harms being done to people here – many of them children – then what’s really needed is constructive dialogue about how to address them. (In fact, the Law Commission draws to some extent on some suggestions I made here). I have some concerns about it myself, though overall I support it. There’s certainly room for debate about this proposal. There are also some thoughtful criticisms from sensible people. Also not surprisingly, many of these people do not seem to have read the Law Commission’s actual proposal, which answers many of the criticisms.
French montana excuse my french zip vk free#
Not surprisingly, perhaps, it’s now being attacked by netizens as a terrible threat to free speech. It has recommended the creation of a tribunal to hear claims of digital harrassment, privacy invasion, intimidation, bullying and defamation. The Law Commission’s brainchild is being bullied online.
0 kommentar(er)
