Harmful Digital Communications Act
This Act came into force on July 3. It’s probably a good idea for all posters to check out the information about it published by the Dept of Justice. It seems to provide the opportunity for people who don’t like something that was posted to ask/demand that it be taken down. The site administrator then needs to contact the author and ask if it can be taken down. If the author refuses, so the story goes, then the aggrieved party can take the matter to as-yet-to-be-established agency and then to a District Court which can order the post be removed.
The Act seems to be a dangerous process of facilitating censorship. Site hosts will probably just remove anything that anyone wants removed because this will provide them with ‘Safe Harbour’ ensuring they won’t have to defend their site in formal legal procedures with the possibility of huge fines.
We can predict that this law like many others will be applied in a sexist way favouring women and disadvantaging men. Women who claim to feel ‘seriously emotionally distressed’ (for which there are no diagnostic criteria or other test except whether the judges believe it) will simply demand that anything they don’t like is removed. Men who claim to feel seriously emotionally distressed especially by anything apparently written by women will be laughed at in the normal way.
In both civil and criminal cases, the courts will take into account factors such as the age of the victim, the context, how widely the communication spread, and whether it was true or false. The courts will also weigh up people’s right to freedom of expression.
Ha, just watch this space. Factors to be taken into account will include whether the writer has a penis or not. And we all know that when it comes to ‘people’s rights’ this often doesn’t include male people. When it gets to the District Court, the judge only has to claim to believe that the posting ‘will cause’ serious emotional distress, not that it ‘has caused’. So the judges are being authorized to base their decisions on fortune telling.
Legislation like this always seems to be written with an agenda to provide women with the ability to repress or harm men, and in this case men’s opinions and writing. The law is written in vague enough terms to let misandry be applied, and it will be.
Interestingly, the behaviour of the White Ribbon campaigners in badly misrepresenting men’s posts after conveniently having removed them from their Facebook page, and in publishing unrelated material alongside claims about particular individuals to discredit them, would be illegal under this law. We will go back and check what the White Ribbon people still have published. It would be satisfying to show them up formally for the bullies they are. Unfortunately, no District Court is likely to be prepared to embarrass Judge Boshier’s organisation or any other feminist wrongdoing.
Here we have an example of terrible abuse suffered by a male who expressed an opinion.
The victim suffered, a hate campaign including appalling injustices. Interesting, considering the horrific nature, and perversions of justice of the abuse, that the abuser was not prosecuted by authorities, but the victim was. The only access to justice for the victim is a law suit.
The really interesting part is how the report then moves on to not only exposing feminist victimisation, but in effect summarising the victimising and abuse of this man as an issue that exclusively is an issue about women being abused online. How women can be harassed out of their high profile jobs etc.
http://www.news.com.au/technology/online/man-endures-terrifying-ordeal-when-cyberhate-turns-to-real-life-abuse/story-fnjwnhzf-1227454595230
This article shows clearly how the media will behave towards the new law, how the authorities will see abuse online. It will be acceptable if the victim is male, but say anything that is even remotely derogatory towards a women and it will be considered abuse.
Comment by DJ Ward — Fri 31st July 2015 @ 4:35 pm
What will happen is that men will move out of society, out of the cities, to where it is safe, and the cities of women will implode and destroy themselves.
Don’t be distracted by ‘online’.
Comment by Downunder — Fri 31st July 2015 @ 7:22 pm
“I don’t care what the truth is Il’ll do what I want”
“whatever happens don’t say anything”
The kiwi way.
Comment by Peadar — Sat 22nd August 2015 @ 7:16 pm
This case is interesting, not that we need to see the picture.
Somehow just describing the image, is enough.
https://www.stuff.co.nz/national/politics/300556615/police-receive-complaint-about-doctored-photo-of-pm-used-to-promote-strip-club
“The Prime Minister’s office declined to comment when approached by Stuff. A spokesman added that it was the perpetrators of misogyny that should be questioned, not the victim.”
That is correct, as she is innocent of anything.
But is this, misogyny.
“In a statement, James Samson of Calendar Girls NZ said its social media was managed by a marketing company which is entirely run and staffed by women.”
So the image was created, by women.
Misogyny: dislike of, contempt for, or ingrained prejudice against women.
So by definition, these women were partly misogynistic.
How then can one have criticism of a woman, without misogyny even by women.
Yet the same people, will celebrate the same done to men.
Didn’t the crowds like, the naked Trump effigies.
Stuff, not publishing them for the misandrist images.
Are they not the same, level of childishness.
The vast majority, seeing it as that.
It seems in politics, standards drop drastically.
Interestingly how things are portrayed, say a lot about the creator.
Trump portrayed as pathetic, because they fear he is strong.
Jacinda portrayed as strong, because they see her as strong.
If portrayed as strong, how can it be misogyny by the woman creator.
Comment by DJ Ward — Sat 2nd April 2022 @ 6:52 pm