Controlling the Narrative - Part 4
Web 2.0, the Law Commission and the Harmful Digital Communications Act 2015
Web 2.0 and the Rise of Social Media
Within the 1994 – 2010 time period a number of major technological changes took place. Perhaps the most significant was the introduction of Web 2.0. This was the second generation of the internet, which marked a shift from static web pages (Web 1.0) to dynamic and interactive platforms.
The key features of Web 2.0 were as follows:
· User-generated content – Websites allowed users to create, share, and interact with content (e.g., blogs, social media).
· Interactivity – Sites became more responsive and interactive through technologies like AJAX.
· Social networking – Platforms like Facebook, Twitter, and YouTube exemplify Web 2.0 by enabling global communication and content sharing.
· Collaborative tools – Wikipedia, Google Docs, and similar platforms let users work together in real time.
· Rich user experience – Enhanced designs and multimedia content made web use more engaging.
Thus Web 2.0 enabled the development and rise of social media platforms. Blogs came in for a degree of attention after Blogger Cameron Slater published names that were the subject of court-ordered non-publication orders. He did not publish the names in plain text but by way of puzzles. He defended the charges but was found guilty.
The Law Commission and the Harmful Digital Communications Act
Following that case in October 2010 the Law Commission undertook a review of the regulatory environment for the news media and its adequacy in catering for new and emerging forms of news media – sometimes referred to as the “new media”.
On 12 December 2011 it published an Issues Paper for feedback entitled “The News Media Meets ‘New Media’: Rights, Responsibilities and Regulation in the Digital Age”.
The Law Commission published its final report on 22 March 2013 but in the meantime it was tasked with another project to address the harm that was being cause by cyberbullying.
Before I embark upon the Harmful Digital Communications Act it is important to understand the messaging that accompanied the Law Commission Review.
The Messaging Behind the Law Commission Review
The messaging started in October 2010 after the decision in Police v Slater had been released. The then Minister of Justice ordered a review of what he characterised as “the wild west” of the Internet.
The news report states as follows:
“The Law Commission will examine the adequacy of regulations around how the internet interacts with the justice system.
Bloggers and online publishers are not subject to any form of regulation or professional or ethical standards, Mr Power told Parliament.
"I've ordered this review because it's imperative the law keeps pace with technology and that we have one set of rules for all news media," Mr Power said.
"At the moment we've got two tracks - conventional media and the so-called 'new media' - intersecting with the justice system, and it's not sustainable.''
He is concerned about how trials can be prejudiced by information posted on websites and seen by jurors, real-time online streaming of court cases, breaches of court suppression orders, and re-publication of a libel.
The review will focus on whether either of the two existing industry watchdogs - the Broadcasting Standards Authority and the Press Council - could provide a suitable vehicle for regulating unregulated forms of new media. It will release a paper next December.
"Because of the enormous scope of this whole issue, the terms of reference for the review have been tightly defined," Mr Power said.
The review will deal with:
* How to define 'news media' for the purposes of the law.
* Whether and to what extent the jurisdiction of the Broadcasting Standards Authority and/or the Press Council should be extended to cover currently unregulated news media, and if so what legislative changes would be required to achieve this.
* Whether existing criminal and civil remedies for wrongs such as defamation, harassment, breach of confidence, and privacy are effective in the new media environment, and if not whether alternative remedies are available.”
The first suggestion was that the Internet and established rules relating to online content did not coincide.
This was patently false. The existing law, as the Slater case demonstrated “worked.” Another case – R v Garret – was back in 2000. It was a case about an allegation of computer hacking, prior to the enactment of computer crimes provisions of the Crimes Act. It was dealt with by charges that were laid in accordance with the law as it stood and those offences were established and proven. Certainly the computer crimes provisions helped to clarify certain on-line criminal behaviours.
Indeed I had been teaching Law and IT and had published two editions of my text internet.law.nz – selected issues which went into some detail about the intersection of existing law and new technologies.
But it was important for the Minister to set a scene – a vast unregulated playground of information that was without law, without rules and without regulation.
In many respects this messaging was a rehash of that of Trevor Rogers and his ill-fated Technology and Crimes Bill that I discussed in a previous article.
It is probably interesting to note that much of the messaging surrounding the Social Media Age Restricted Users Bill echoes the same style of messaging in an effort to justify the regulation of a communications system.
In Media Watch for 11 May 2024 Colin Peacock reflected on the events of 2010 – 11. He states:
“Back in 2011, (it was 2010 actually) justice minister Simon Power ordered a review into what he called the ''wild west'' online world. The Law Commission recommended major reform of New Zealand's regulators and watchdog agencies.
A decade and a half later, New Zealand still has the same pre-Internet era organisations regulating media.
None of them really marshall the internet for the good of New Zealanders, whether they're over 16 or not.”
It is interesting to see the continued messaging in support of Internet regulation. The fact that the same “pre-Internet era organisations are regulating the Internet” is not in and of itself justification for regulation. Then Mr Peacock ventures his own opinion about whether they “marshall the Internet for the good of New Zealanders.”
