New Zealand Government Seeking To Expand Its Internet Censorship Powers
from the move-fast-and-break-things-I-guess dept
New Zealand has been in the censorship business for years, but the government appears to believe it's still not doing enough censoring. Legislation stemming from the government's reaction to the live-streamed Christchurch shooting seeks to expand its ability to block content it deems to be objectionable. In most cases, this means content related to terrorism or violent extremism. But the livestreaming of a mass shooting has created an open-ended definition for the government to work with in conjunction with its criminalization of this act.
Newsroom has written up a very thorough examination of the proposed law, with this chilling bit found all the way at the end of its article.
Lastly, the legislation makes it an offence to livestream objectionable content. [...] The new offence would be punishable by up to 14 years in prison if carried out by an individual or a $200,000 fine for corporations.
Define "objectionable." Certainly livestreaming a mass murder would be objectionable, but not if you're a witness to the horror, rather than the perpetrator. But who knows how the law will be read? The threat of a long prison sentence is likely to deter people from streaming horrific events, even if such streaming is newsworthy. This seems to leave everything up to prosecutorial discretion -- something that often isn't deployed reasonably or equitably.
There's a lot more to this bill, though. The government wants ISPs and platforms to do more policing of content it doesn't like. But even with more time and effort being put towards the proposal, legislators still seem hazy on the implementation details. And this uncertainty can be inflicted on the rest of the world.
For the purposes of this measure, "online content hosts" refers to companies "both in New Zealand and overseas that provide services to the public".
Companies issued a takedown notice must remove the content "as soon as is reasonably practicable", although they may be asked to securely and privately retain a copy for later investigation.
Non-compliant hosts can be taken to court and made to pay a fine of up to $200,000.
Legislators appear to believe website filtering will limit the amount of "objectionable" content available to New Zealand residents. Again, this proposal appears to build on the government's past failures under the assumption that a renewed effort will make things work right this time. But if the past is any indication of future success, this is going to cause far more problems than it solves. ISPs are being asked to do something, but no one has made it explicitly clear what they should be doing.
Since the March 15 terror attack, ISPs have repeatedly asked the Government to create a framework for ordering the blocking or filtering of websites. In the immediate aftermath of the attack, ISPs butted heads with DIA officials who wanted content blocked but didn't have the statutory authority to demand that.
The government is going to build a new filter list once it has the legal authority to do it. Hopefully, this effort will be less of a debacle. The previous effort was an ad hoc disaster.
The list of URLs to be blocked was hosted on a Google spreadsheet and on at least one occasion, an email full of website addresses for censoring was deleted by an email spam filter.
The legislation will attempt to bang this all together into a usable whole, but about the only thing that seems clear at this point is the government feels more and faster censorship of the web is necessary. The bill gives the country's Chief Censor the power to make "interim" rulings on content, allowing this entity to expedite deletions, blocklist additions, and takedown demands. And this would cover whatever the government decides is "objectionable." If it restrains itself to targeting extremist content, it still runs the risk of censoring newsworthy content that may contain information investigators and security agencies might have found useful. It will certainly end up accidentally censoring stuff it never meant to censor while allowing the content it's trying to target to slip past its patchwork blockade.
Thank you for reading this Techdirt post. With so many things competing for everyone’s attention these days, we really appreciate you giving us your time. We work hard every day to put quality content out there for our community.
Techdirt is one of the few remaining truly independent media outlets. We do not have a giant corporation behind us, and we rely heavily on our community to support us, in an age when advertisers are increasingly uninterested in sponsoring small, independent sites — especially a site like ours that is unwilling to pull punches in its reporting and analysis.
While other websites have resorted to paywalls, registration requirements, and increasingly annoying/intrusive advertising, we have always kept Techdirt open and available to anyone. But in order to continue doing so, we need your support. We offer a variety of ways for our readers to support us, from direct donations to special subscriptions and cool merchandise — and every little bit helps. Thank you.
–The Techdirt Team
Filed Under: censorship, free speech, internet, new zealand, objectionable content, online harms
Reader Comments
Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
I find most politicians to be objectionable, so no more live-streaming of any speeches?
But live-streaming means as it is happening... So a person needs to know to stop recording before the objectionable part happens?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Western civilization has been through all this before, like all the censorship after the invention of the printing press, where copyright was literally official permission to produce copies, and required before a book was printed. That effort did not preserve the power of church or state, but just caused conflict until a society changed to accommodate the increased ability of the people to exercise power.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
NZ likely can't do anything about it
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
One law for you, and another for us
$200,000 fine? Really? How is that going to deter any but the very smallest of companies. This is clearly aimed at the peons, as usual. Hell, companies routinely ignore fines in the millions of dollars - they'll laugh at the idea that a fine in the thousands is anything but a green light to behavior.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
when are people going to wake up to the fact that governments everywhere are in cahoots to take control of the Internet, removing the option for ordinary people to access it unless specific permission is granted, a fee paid and only the sites deemed 'OK' by these governments being accessible? it's got nothing to do with what they say is 'objectionable content' and everything to do with keeping hidden whatever they dont want us to learn about, usually what those in government and their 'friends' have been/are up to! the Internet is supposed to be free for everyone to search for whatever they want, regardless of how hidden. it was never intended to be locked down by any one government or industry or government. laws like this are removing freedom and privacy as well as free speech from what are supposed to be democratic countries run by what are supposed to be democratic governments. this is what happens when those in government want to destroy democracy under the guise of 'protecting the children' and similar excuses when really all they are after is protecting themselves and their own wrong doings!!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Its unlikely they will be able to take control of the Internet. Also its unlikely they will ever remove the option for ordinary people to access it unless specific permission is granted or force a fee paid.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
It depends on what some official deems offensive,
how wide is the net, new Zealand is a small country. Will they simply draw up a list of extreme websites?
A bad law can block a lot of legal content, like reporting on war crimes or details of government surveillance of protesters or illegal acts by police
200k is nothing to Google or Facebook. It would be a lot to a small isp in new Zealand
See Fosta in America many websites took down personal dating ads to avoid anything to do
with adults having casual sex
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
BIG problem they never see..
Keep the bad news from ever being on TV, and what do you get?
You never see things coming or happening.
Lets do this to the weather channel. and see what happens to the Kiwi's.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Because being a witness to criminal activity is just as bad as committing the crime... of course.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: witness to criminal activity
is just as bad as committing the crime... of course.
Like live-streaming a cop killing someone in Minneapolis, maybe?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
..Define "objectionable." Certainly livestreaming a mass murder would be objectionable, but not if you're a witness to the horror, rather than the perpetrator.
Shouldn't that be the other way around? If I were a witness to that mass murder in ChristChurch, I know I would find that objectionable....
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Ranks up there with Fact checking..
Who the F' to believe...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]