Steven Price

My book

Media Minefield


Guide to NZ Media Law

Official Information Act

Official Information Act


Bill of Rights Act

Media law resources

Feeds (RSS)


« Live public debates on our Constitution | Main | Wha…? »

Digital harrassment remedies coming

By Steven | April 4, 2013

Justice Minister Judith Collins has (by and large) accepted the Law Commission’s recommendations to better protect victims of cyber-harrassment. (I have explained and defended and critiqued and defended again the Law Commission’s proposals elsewhere).

Note that this is not the same as the Law Commission’s recently confirmed plan to set up a one-stop regulator for the news media (discussed here and in subsequent posts). That only applies to news and current affairs and it only applies to those who voluntarily sign up. The new cyber-bullying civil remedies, by contrast, apply to everyone except the news media who sign up to that regulator. And the new criminal reforms apply to everyone, fullstop.

I think these reforms are justified. The Law Commission has made a good case that there’s plenty of cyber-bullying going on, and some of it is very harmful indeed. Most of the criminal law changes are about tweaking the law to ensure that it can apply online. The new civil remedy, which includes take-down orders made by judges, is beset by protections for free speech, so it ought not to be used except  where strictly justified. To get a take-down order, you’ll have to do all of the following:

– show that someone has caused you digital harm, which can include significant emotional distress

– show that they’ve done so by breaching one of ten principles, designed to reflect existing law (eg they’ve disclosed sensitive personal facts about you, or has been intimidating or threatening)

– take your complaint to an approved agency (which might be Netsafe), who can give you advice, and perhaps try to resolve the complaint by mediation

– (it seems) obtain Netsafe’s certification that its attempts to resolve the situation have failed and the case is appropriate to go before a judge

– convince a judge that one or more of the principles have been breached, causing you harm

– convince a judge that the context of the digital communication and the surrounding circumstances do not tell against a remedy

– convince a judge that the Bill of Rights guarantee of free speech does not tell against a remedy

If you can do all that, you may get a take-down order, or a right of reply, or a correction, but you won’t be able to get damages. And the person concerned may appeal. So there are sufficient protections, I think, against abuse. Still, I expect there to be wails of protest from free speech absolutists, who are unlikely to draw attention to the protections I’ve just set out, and may not even be aware of them.

I still have some concerns, and they’re mostly set out in my critique of the Law Commission’s report.

But some are new. The biggest difference between the Law Commission’s recommendations and the government’s plan is the dumping of the separate Communications Tribunal. Instead, District Court judges are to be given powers to hear these cases and make these orders. What’s that you say? Is our entire body of district court judges tech-savvy enough, and alive enough to the nuances of the Bill of Rights, to handle these cases? How many of them have, for example, visited Facebook or read a tweet? The Law Commission proposed a panel of specialist judges with this interest and skill (come in: David Harvey) to head the tribunal. No problem, says the government. “It is envisaged that in assigning cases account would be taken of a particular judge’s interest, understanding and expertise in media law. This would allow greater expertise in the subject matter to be developed over time.”

It’s true that the judiciary do engage in a bit of horses-for-courses when assigning cases for hearing. But I doubt this is the answer here. For a start, this is up to the judiciary. Are the regulations going to tell judges how they are supposed to assign their cases? I think that’s opening a can of constitutional worms and I bet they avoid it. Besides, many of these cases are going to be urgent. And they could come in at any time, in any part of the country. Often, there won’t be time to track down an expert judge. So I worry that we’re going to get decisions by some judges who can barely work their email and who have never had to deal with the Bill of Right’s free speech clause before. I am sceptical about the development of greater expertise in a specialist subset of judges.

I also have a question about the new offence of using a communications device with intention to cause harm. The government’s press release says that this offence is about sending or posting messages that are grossly offensive, indecent, obscene, menacing or knowingly false. And that’s what the Law Commission talks about. But para 116 of the Cabinet paper talks of people “using technology to control their partners, including tracking and monitoring of their partners’ movements by reading text messages and internet search histories, and reviewing GPS usage.” It suggests the new offence of using a communications device with intent to cause harm will “go some way to protect” such people. That implies that the offence (whose wording has not been finalised) isn’t just about sending and posting messages. It may be about accessing information too. Now, I’m not sure whether this is what the government intends to do. I’m not even sure it would be terrible. But it’s not what the Law Commission was talking about and seems to warrant a bit more thought and debate.

Then there’s the bit about the Bill of Rights. Under the proposal, the court is supposed to “take account” people’s right to freedom of expression. I’ve assumed that this means that they must properly apply the Bill of Rights. But that’s more than “taking account” of the right to free speech. It means complying with that right, unless any particular restriction is demonstrably justified under section 5 of the Bill of Rights. So I’m suspicious of this language of “taking account” which on one reading may imply something less. But the Bill of Rights applies to the courts and must surely apply to the public functions of the approved agency. So I’m hoping there’s nothing in this point.

And I’m still worried about the mechanics of unmasking anonymous posters and ensuring that those who might be subject to take-down orders (including third parties) or unmasking orders get a proper chance to argue the toss before the order is made. To some extent, the devil will be in the details. The government has left a lot of work to the drafters of the legal framework.

Incidentally, that legal framework will be contained in regulations. That strikes me as a little bit odd. The government is creating a new remedies regime, and conferring extra juridiction upon the courts. The Law Commission was envisaging a statute. The advantage of regulations is that they can be easily changed without full Parliamentary rigmarole and scrutiny. The disadvantage of regulations is that they can be easily changed without full Parliamentary rigmarole and scrutiny. I would hope that at least the essential foundations of this new law will be set out in a statute.

Topics: General, Injunctions, Internet issues |

4 Responses to “Digital harrassment remedies coming”

  1. rich.d.rich Says:
    April 4th, 2013 at 1:54 pm

    And the new criminal reforms apply to everyone, fullstop.

    Well, to everyone in the NZ jurisdiction, surely?

    The NZ courts won’t have the ability to enforce their judgments against offshore companies, especially when NZ law is out of sync with the domestic law of other jurisdictions. One could assume that anyone wanting to post potentially proscribed content will do so offshore, probably through a VPN or anonymous proxy.

  2. Steven Says:
    April 4th, 2013 at 2:03 pm

    We have jurisdiction over NZers and over foreigners’ actions here. I don’t know whether something posted from overseas and targeted at NZ would count as an action here. It does in defamation cases. But anyone in NZ routing information via foreign platforms is clearly subject to our laws. But that’s rather beside the point, as you note, since it may be impossible to enforce.

    But I’d say it’s beside the point for another reason. Most people being bullied are being bullied by someone in NZ. They know who it is. And the bullying messages or posts will often be full of clues about who it is.

    What’s more, it will be a rare bully who takes the sort of action to hide their identity that you talk about. Most people just don’t do that.

    Finally, the court can order online intermediaries to reveal the identity of anonymous posters. Now, you’ll say “but foreign intermediaries don’t have to comply”. True. But the responsible ones have policies to comply with orders from the authorities they recognise, such as NZ courts.

    Will there be some gaps? Yep. Can some clever people slip the net? Yep. But 90% of a loaf is better than none, I say.

  3. Graeme Edgeler Says:
    April 4th, 2013 at 3:49 pm

    We have people who hold warrants as District Court Judges holding warrants as youth court judges, and family court judges, and jury trial judges. We have District Court Judges who are seconded part time to the Parole Board.

    The decisions as to which of these judges get which of these warrants is ultimately made by cabinet. It is not up to the Court to assign a random DCJ to hear a jury trial if they haven’t been specifically signed off to conduct jury trials, in effect by the executive, as part of the judicial appointment process.

    Is there any reason to believe the same cannot occur with these powers?

    I’m not saying that that is how they plan to do it, but it could, and I have no reason to believe it wouldn’t work.

  4. Steven Says:
    April 4th, 2013 at 3:51 pm

    Yes, they absolutely could, and I rather think it would be a good idea, but (a) it’s not what they are explicitly proposing and (b) this way of doing things seems inconsistent with the language in the Cabinet paper, and (c) it would seem odd to do this by regulation.

Comments

You must be logged in to post a comment.