Labour butchering anti-free-speech law
 

At least Tova’s doing her job.


https://twitter.com/dbseymour/status...rc=twsrc%5Etfw

https://www.newshub.co.nz/home/polit...eech-laws.html

wtf? this isn't the country where the hate was allowed to grow. We imported that fucker from Australia.

Tova: I'm not being shrill this time, I swear!

But who cares. Laws exist to protect the rich and powerful from the rich and powerful.

We can tell by how indifferent we are to our kids getting raped.

Sounds to me like you're expressing an insulting opinion that may stir up hatred against people of child-raping age. Labour's thought police will want a word.

If someone powerful wants to stomp on me, they'll find a way. The law doesn't exist to protect me.

Nice, sounds like this will end racism and such. Maybe they could provide a solution to the housing crisis while they're at it.

Easy, become a nation of renters. You will own nothing and be happy. Minimalism, baby!

Yeah, that's my attitude to laws and customs too, if it doesn't affect me personally in a bad way I don't care.

The world is bigger than you.

Those contrarians with dissenting voices are becoming less for fear of what will happen to them. You are being denied that much. The ability to hear what others have to say.

Which examples are you thinking of xor? I can think of some myself, but I wonder if we're thinking about the same thing?

Historic use case: Galileo Galilei.

Okay, I see. You see a link between Galileo being persecuted for establishing a fundamentally new way of viewing our place in the universe and attempts to mitigate people who would use broadcast platforms to oppress minority groups.

I haven't quite made that link myself, can you say more?

The authorities tried to silence/kill Galileo because of his speech. His speech targeted religion as it challenged their beliefs. Of its day it would have been deemed as insulting to the church.

The proposed legislation is incredibly subjective that it allows for prosecution of someone who says anything that is subjectively inferred to be insulting a religious group.

If you're ok with the state being the arbiters of what you can and cannot say and what you can and cannot listen to then you would never hear a modern equivalent of such a brilliant person such as Galileo Galilei. I personally wouldn't trust such legislation to be drafted by the likes of Kris Faafoi, seeing as he was incapable of articulating the intention of specific use cases of where the law would be applied.

The main thing I'm struck with is how what you're concerned about is currently ongoing: the flow of ideas from such brilliant people is actively being stymied. But I don't notice you speaking up about it. Unless someone evokes a special phrase like "free speech".

The circumstances of today are very different to that of Galileo. The kind of speech that is being targeted is very different.

And we already expect "the state" to be arbiters over all kinds of facets of our lives, including what we can say in certain contexts. That's exactly why we appoint a government.

Now, if this a discussion of the nuance of the legislation, that would be different, right? But if you're just coming out with a big ole "I wann mah free speech" hammer, well... there's no brilliant insight here for the state to suppress.

This is already the current situation.

The proposed changes to NZ law do not restrict scope to broadcast platforms, oppression, or minority groups.

Under the proposed legislation, if I posted to NZG the sort of thing that I have posted a thousand times, like "fuck Nazis, what a bunch of pricks" I could be prosecuted for publishing something insulting towards a group defined by political opinion which might incite hatred towards them.

That action fits the criteria. Published, insulting, group defined by political opinion, might incite hatred.

If these changes were to pass, it would be the greatest thing ever for hate groups. Because they'd be legally uncriticisable. They do hateful shit, so posting about them might result in people hating them, so the posting would be illegal, so best to not post.

Graeme Edgeler had been doing some great commentaries on the topic

https://publicaddress.net/legalbeagl...oper-scope-of/

Another very valid criticism of this fucking retarded proposal is that prosecution is not necessarily the problem. The police tend to, shall we say, take an interest in people a long time before the threshold of prosecution is reached. The police aren't fucking legal philosophers. When they're given a signal that they can now take an interest in people based on what they say, the police will fucking do it.

So it will be best to just not criticise anything. Or write any anything. Or joke about anything. Or say anything. Or associate with anyone who might have a history of, you know, being of interest.

I met Edge while he was working for Mr MEGA hisself - Kim Dotcom. Got out of that as soon as he reasonably could!

I've always found him to look for more than the surface knee-jerk take on things. And he's also viciously good at board games.

But it is how contemporary broadcast platforms can dramatically amplify any message that prompts these reforms.

Hopefully we're electing people who appreciate the nuances you've raised. Rather than say, those who publicly and loudly champion free speech, while also acting to undermine sophisticated speech.

We're not.

Newshub: "Jacinda Ardern is wrong about her own hate speech law. Completely and utterly wrong."

Herald: "In the four days since the Government outlined changes to “hate speech” law, it has become obvious from comments by the Prime Minister, Jacinda Ardern, that she does not understand them."

And as I commented above (inspired by a blog post from Graeme Edgeler a couple of weeks ago), the big problem isn't necessarily what the law says or whether or not the politicians understand the nuances of it; it's how the police act based on what they think their new powers are. The English example suggests that the police will go way further than the actual law.

You're more convincing when you don't link to Tova or NZH.

Which is not to say I don't agree. In fact it's painfully obvious who we're electing.

How about a commenter with a bit more nuance: Graeme Edgeler
https://publicaddress.net/legalbeagl...oper-scope-of/

holy shit why has noone shared, mentioned, or linked to Graeme Edgeler’s thoughts on this issue before this particular instant, thanks so much crocos!

Fuck. Had a real brain-dead moment there. Especially as I fucking COMMENTED on f_t posting that link.

senior moment ;)

That's what I thought! Hahaha. Ah yes, brain dead moments don't become less frequent as we age, do they?

Yep, but when the new legislation passes it'll mean you can't tell TERFs to fuck off, or Nazis as Simon's example.

Nope, i want to hear all types of opinions from all different people, both good and bad. Yes, the state does have some ability to prosecute people or censor under existing legislation. But not to extend to the point where someone will be prosecuted for being 'insulting toward a group'.

The proposed legislation is going through a process right now which is good. Your fake free speech purism (what I responded to) isn't.

You say that, but when I point out you're being a cunt, you have a big sook. So I kinda don't believe you. More likely you want to hear what you want to hear, and sometimes what you want to hear is others treating those you look down on like shit.

Yep, that's fair. I would prefer there to be more free speech but accept the value of some of the current legislation. What i don't want is for it to be more subjective, which it is being proposed now.

Of course you would, because that's you.

Oof, xor is in for a shock when he finds out how often the word "reasonable" appears in law.

What is reasonable to one group is not reasonable to another group. It's too subjective

Welp, guess we should abandon rule of law then.

The proposed new legislation is badly-written, thrown together in a knee-jerk reaction to a problem that it doesn't solve, and is being thrust upon us by a government that doesn't know what it says.

That really does make one want to give up on the rule of law. Because when you see it in practice like this, you lose faith in it.

As well as groups defined by political opinion, the proposed law would cover criticism of groups which are defined by age.

Hate-speech complaints and lawsuits from offended boomers will be an entire industry.