New Zealand makes internet 'trolling' illegal

Rizzi

Banned
Joined
Jun 8, 2015
Messages
173
Reaction score
7
But opposing a law designed to prevent specific acts targeting specific individuals because somehow it might morph into a suppression of your own ability to express opinions is a pretty far reach, to me.

I care less about what it's ostensibly designed to do and more about what it has the potential to do.

And, no, I have no faith that someone somewhere adequately defined harm. I understand precedent and case history. I also understand how quickly one ideology can wield the law as a weapon against another ideology.
 

shadowwalker

empty-nester!
Super Member
Registered
Joined
Mar 8, 2010
Messages
5,601
Reaction score
598
Location
SE Minnesota
In general, I would say if a law is intended to fill a specific gap in existing law, it itself should be very specific. Like Rizzi, I have automatic concerns about TPTB deciding what's 'harm' and what isn't - and frankly, the 'official' definition mentioned earlier is pretty meaningless, if that's how it's actually stated. I also agree with the "just because the majority want it doesn't make it right". We in the States certainly should have enough experience in that arena.

And finally, let's bear in mind that there's a difference between accepting particular behaviors and having concerns about the laws addressing them.