ACCforum: Harmful Digital Communications Act 2015 - ACCforum

Jump to content

  • 6 Pages +
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • Last »
  • You cannot start a new topic
  • You cannot reply to this topic

Harmful Digital Communications Act 2015 New Law Passed -Document for perusal

#1 User is offline   David Butler 

  • Advanced Member
  • PipPipPip
  • Group: Members
  • Posts: 3370
  • Joined: 25-January 10

Posted 04 July 2015 - 03:00 PM

Interesting times ahead ,

David .




.Attached File  Harmful Digital Communications Act 2015.pdf (429.74K)
Number of downloads: 18
0

#2 User is offline   Alan Thomas 

  • Advanced Member
  • PipPipPip
  • Group: Members
  • Posts: 7683
  • Joined: 10-June 06

Posted 04 July 2015 - 03:50 PM

David Butler has very generously and kindly provided a copy of the new legislation currently being discussed on this forum. David has provided this information in the true spirit of the site.

However inexplicably somebody has had the mindset to disapprove of Davids good intentions with providing him with a red disapproval point. What kind of a moron would have done that?
1

#3 User is offline   Alan Thomas 

  • Advanced Member
  • PipPipPip
  • Group: Members
  • Posts: 7683
  • Joined: 10-June 06

Posted 04 July 2015 - 03:55 PM

It appears that these fundamental principles found in this new legislation will need to be carefully considered from this point by tagteam and others of like mind.

6 Communication principles
(1) The communication principles are—

Principle 1
A digital communication should not disclose sensitive personal facts about an individual.

Principle 2
A digital communication should not be threatening, intimidating, or menacing.

Principle 3
A digital communication should not be grossly offensive to a reasonable person in the position of the affected individual.

Principle 4
A digital communication should not be indecent or obscene.

Principle 5
A digital communication should not be used to harass an individual.

Principle 6
A digital communication should not make a false allegation.

Principle 7
A digital communication should not contain a matter that is published in breach of confidence.

Principle 8
A digital communication should not incite or encourage anyone to send a message to an individual for the purpose of causing harm to the individual.
2015 No 63 Harmful Digital Communications Act 2015 Part 1 s 65

Principle 9
A digital communication should not incite or encourage an individual to commit suicide.

Principle 10
A digital communication should not denigrate an individual by reason of his or her colour, race, ethnic or national origins, religion, gender, sexual orientation, or disability.
-3

#4 User is offline   MINI 

  • Advanced Member
  • PipPipPip
  • Group: Members
  • Posts: 7008
  • Joined: 09-October 07

Posted 04 July 2015 - 04:17 PM

View PostAlan Thomas, on 04 July 2015 - 03:55 PM, said:

It appears that these fundamental principles found in this new legislation will need to be carefully considered from this point by tagteam and others of like mind.

6 Communication principles
(1) The communication principles are—

Principle 1
A digital communication should not disclose sensitive personal facts about an individual.

Principle 2
A digital communication should not be threatening, intimidating, or menacing.

Principle 3
A digital communication should not be grossly offensive to a reasonable person in the position of the affected individual.

Principle 4
A digital communication should not be indecent or obscene.

Principle 5
A digital communication should not be used to harass an individual.

Principle 6
A digital communication should not make a false allegation.

Principle 7
A digital communication should not contain a matter that is published in breach of confidence.

Principle 8
A digital communication should not incite or encourage anyone to send a message to an individual for the purpose of causing harm to the individual.
2015 No 63 Harmful Digital Communications Act 2015 Part 1 s 65

Principle 9
A digital communication should not incite or encourage an individual to commit suicide.

Principle 10
A digital communication should not denigrate an individual by reason of his or her colour, race, ethnic or national origins, religion, gender, sexual orientation, or disability.


Alan Thomas

Where does it say it can be backdated. Don't forget to flip the coin over when you read the law!!

Mini
7

#5 User is offline   MINI 

  • Advanced Member
  • PipPipPip
  • Group: Members
  • Posts: 7008
  • Joined: 09-October 07

Posted 04 July 2015 - 04:44 PM

View PostAlan Thomas, on 04 July 2015 - 03:50 PM, said:

David Butler has very generously and kindly provided a copy of the new legislation currently being discussed on this forum. David has provided this information in the true spirit of the site.

However inexplicably somebody has had the mindset to disapprove of Davids good intentions with providing him with a red disapproval point. What kind of a moron would have done that?


Alan Thomas

Seeing as you are still speaking on behalf of David Butler could you tell us why he started up a new thread, when he had already posted the Act on another thread and I had said thank you and given him a greenie for posting it?

If he had left it there and not started a new thread, my one greenie would have absorbed the reddie and it would be showing zero now and no harm done. I have no idea who has put the reddie there however it is a free range site and considering what David butler has done to a lot of people it is understandable that some one would give him a reddie.

However it could be himself doing it to make it look like one of the victims. I don't know and cannot know that and you have spent many years telling us all on here that you cannot act as admin, so neither will you be able to say who it was.

Maybe if you are so concerned you should ask Admin to let you know who it is so you can do something legal about it, if it is indeed illegal for someone to have done it.

Mini
4

#6 User is offline   Alan Thomas 

  • Advanced Member
  • PipPipPip
  • Group: Members
  • Posts: 7683
  • Joined: 10-June 06

Posted 04 July 2015 - 04:49 PM

View PostMINI, on 04 July 2015 - 04:17 PM, said:

Alan Thomas

Where does it say it can be backdated. Don't forget to flip the coin over when you read the law!!

Mini


As I have not made any comment regarding backdating why are you beating the on the head?

However now that you raise the point obviously historical behaviour patterns are relevant is identified in these sections.
2

#7 User is offline   Alan Thomas 

  • Advanced Member
  • PipPipPip
  • Group: Members
  • Posts: 7683
  • Joined: 10-June 06

Posted 04 July 2015 - 04:52 PM

I have been censured with a red point for posting a portion of the new legislation which is pertinent to this thread.

Why would anybody issue a red point for that?
2

#8 User is offline   David Butler 

  • Advanced Member
  • PipPipPip
  • Group: Members
  • Posts: 3370
  • Joined: 25-January 10

Posted 04 July 2015 - 08:05 PM

View PostMINI, on 04 July 2015 - 04:44 PM, said:

Alan Thomas

Seeing as you are still speaking on behalf of David Butler could you tell us why he started up a new thread, when he had already posted the Act on another thread and I had said thank you and given him a greenie for posting it?

If he had left it there and not started a new thread, my one greenie would have absorbed the reddie and it would be showing zero now and no harm done. I have no idea who has put the reddie there however it is a free range site and considering what David butler has done to a lot of people it is understandable that some one would give him a reddie.

However it could be himself doing it to make it look like one of the victims. I don't know and cannot know that and you have spent many years telling us all on here that you cannot act as admin, so neither will you be able to say who it was.

Maybe if you are so concerned you should ask Admin to let you know who it is so you can do something legal about it, if it is indeed illegal for someone to have done it.

Mini

Fact Alan is NOT speaking on my behalf.
I do consider that the publication of the Principals from within the pdf file was a good idea and what alan says is correct that they need to be taken notice of.




My opinion on your postings conspiracy of the reds and greenies theoretical nonsense is as below.
All done seemingly before i came in just now so i couldnt give a toss about it.


The thread was about the new bill.

It was unfortunate that the new law i posted in that thread has gone off general lounge so to that i reposted the Law document again so it was available for debate and to general web site users without the need to log in as many readers do just that


David.Posted Image
-1

#9 User is offline   MINI 

  • Advanced Member
  • PipPipPip
  • Group: Members
  • Posts: 7008
  • Joined: 09-October 07

Posted 05 July 2015 - 10:00 AM

View PostAlan Thomas, on 04 July 2015 - 04:52 PM, said:

I have been censured with a red point for posting a portion of the new legislation which is pertinent to this thread.

Why would anybody issue a red point for that?


They don't need a reason do they. I see you got 5 greenies the other day, when five people weren't on line. How do you do that??

Oh that's right Whetu and H8ACC are hanging about doing nothing eh??

Mini
4

#10 User is offline   not their victim 

  • Advanced Member
  • PipPipPip
  • Group: Members
  • Posts: 10829
  • Joined: 04-August 08

Posted 05 July 2015 - 10:29 AM

Found that Interesting too

6 greenies when no one else around lol

Just goes to show-
6 aliases ticking ones own work?
3

#11 User is offline   REX 

  • Advanced Member
  • PipPipPip
  • Group: Members
  • Posts: 2647
  • Joined: 16-July 09

Posted 05 July 2015 - 11:08 AM

View PostMINI, on 05 July 2015 - 10:00 AM, said:

They don't need a reason do they. I see you got 5 greenies the other day, when five people weren't on line. How do you do that??

Oh that's right Whetu and H8ACC are hanging about doing nothing eh??

Mini


Mini did you realise that you have just accused Alan Thomas of being someone who "you allege" threatened to kill you.

I'm shocked you stoop as low as to accuse ((insinuate) Alan Thomas of being someone capable of threats to kill or manipulate the reputation points system.

Alan has a lot of supporters in this forum who show their vote of confidence because of his Acc legislation knowledge, kindness, positive straight up honest attitude.

It may disappoint you very much that you and the rest of the tagteam who have slandered his good name haven't been able to delude everyone with your BULLYING.

What a shame it appears Irene has joined in on your bullying lately, she must want to be where you're headed.. (COURT)




I think you should say you are EXTREMELY SORRY and ask for his forgiveness for all the harm you have done to his feelings , reputation, ability to be dealing with his PTSD over the last decade...

I think you're going to have to explain a lot in court to do with UNSUPPORTED accusations if you don't and your tag team comrades/co conspirators will desert you,, guaranteed...Posted Image





2

#12 User is offline   Alan Thomas 

  • Advanced Member
  • PipPipPip
  • Group: Members
  • Posts: 7683
  • Joined: 10-June 06

Posted 05 July 2015 - 11:34 AM

Rex I agree with your point that the UNREASONABLE will not be allowed to make a claim under this new Act.
I agree that unreasonableness is measured by their lack of reason in their actions such as making assumptions then calling those assumptions fact.
ie millar, Mini, NTV, anonymousey etc
1

#13 User is offline   REX 

  • Advanced Member
  • PipPipPip
  • Group: Members
  • Posts: 2647
  • Joined: 16-July 09

Posted 05 July 2015 - 11:35 AM

View PostMINI, on 05 July 2015 - 11:24 AM, said:

You know what you can do with your apology don't you Rex. Don't worry haven't forgotten you and how did you know I was on my way to court??

Reasonable presumption seeing as I have paid a lawyer in 2013 to attend to the sites eh and would it have been before the bought in the programme being self monitoring. Go do some proper research on your own and the sites behalf, I am sure Admin will thank you.

Mini


As we have witnessed every day you use the threats of lawyers to scare people from standing up to you and your tagteam. If you went to a lawyer I can only assume they said get a real life and an honest one.

You will be facing charges comprising of bullying and slander MINI. (Its just what happens to bullies like you who post crap that has no foundation. )

I for one will be one unable to contain my laughter from the public gallery (maybe after I have been and given testimony without a neck brace and water bottle.)

I hope the court will understand why I will be rolling around on the floor in fits of laughter and don't get kicked out.



1

#14 User is offline   MINI 

  • Advanced Member
  • PipPipPip
  • Group: Members
  • Posts: 7008
  • Joined: 09-October 07

Posted 05 July 2015 - 11:37 AM

View PostAlan Thomas, on 04 July 2015 - 04:49 PM, said:

As I have not made any comment regarding backdating why are you beating the on the head?

However now that you raise the point obviously historical behaviour patterns are relevant is identified in these sections.


Alan Thomas

I bring up the logical things that need to come first before one starts reading the law.

This could be one of the reasons for losses. People unfamiliar with the pattern of law assent jump in head first and don't take the obvious needs into consideration in the first instance.

I try to stop people getting the wrong information that will lead them to the wrong conclusion. So go away and find out the part of the Act that came in day after date of Assent was signed, and come back with facts and sections of the Act that are imperative to know before we start reading it.

Mini
5

#15 User is offline   REX 

  • Advanced Member
  • PipPipPip
  • Group: Members
  • Posts: 2647
  • Joined: 16-July 09

Posted 05 July 2015 - 12:30 PM

View PostMINI, on 05 July 2015 - 11:37 AM, said:

Alan Thomas

I bring up the logical things that need to come first before one starts reading the law.

This could be one of the reasons for losses. People unfamiliar with the pattern of law assent jump in head first and don't take the obvious needs into consideration in the first instance.

I try to stop people getting the wrong information that will lead them to the wrong conclusion. So go away and find out the part of the Act that came in day after date of Assent was signed, and come back with facts and sections of the Act that are imperative to know before we start reading it.

Mini


You know nothing about how to prepare a case which has support by your loses posted on this forum. I laugh how you say reviews are your stepping stone and a trial run to appeal. You are supposed to have a case to WIN if you knew what you were doing.(NOT wait for the conclusion of the first loss to manipulate the next hearing to believe any new crap you add wasting the courts time.

The court only wants to see that relevant facts (facts ARE supported...) ONLY about the issue to be determined. NOT anything you throw at them to try and make them believe.

That's where you leave reality on this forum and make suggestion.. You have probably learnt that off Tomcat.

He posts nothing to support his suggestion and add something about faecal matter which disgusts readers with any nous enough not to debut with such a loser and the deluded follow on with his crap.




That doesn't happen in court mini they simply ask what you have in your water bottle.











1

#16 User is offline   MINI 

  • Advanced Member
  • PipPipPip
  • Group: Members
  • Posts: 7008
  • Joined: 09-October 07

Posted 05 July 2015 - 12:55 PM

View PostREX, on 05 July 2015 - 12:30 PM, said:

You know nothing about how to prepare a case which has support by your loses posted on this forum. I laugh how you say reviews are your stepping stone and a trial run to appeal. You are supposed to have a case to WIN if you knew what you were doing.(NOT wait for the conclusion of the first loss to manipulate the next hearing to believe any new crap you add wasting the courts time.

The court only wants to see that relevant facts (facts ARE supported...) ONLY about the issue to be determined. NOT anything you throw at them to try and make them believe.

That's where you leave reality on this forum and make suggestion.. You have probably learnt that off Tomcat.

He posts nothing to support his suggestion and add something about faecal matter which disgusts readers with any nous enough not to debut with such a loser and the deluded follow on with his crap.




That doesn't happen in court mini they simply ask what you have in your water bottle.


Rex

No more playing. Too busy.
Mini
0

#17 User is offline   not their victim 

  • Advanced Member
  • PipPipPip
  • Group: Members
  • Posts: 10829
  • Joined: 04-August 08

Posted 05 July 2015 - 01:14 PM

Phils having a meltdown

Must be stuck in his lazyboy

Alan Thomas will need to reassert members of the alleged tag team

And the IDENTITIES had better be correct

Lala land have already retracted statements re the supposed identity of NTV

Just goes to show, they have no investigative skills at all
3

#18 User is offline   Brucey 

  • Advanced Member
  • PipPipPip
  • Group: Members
  • Posts: 8021
  • Joined: 26-January 07
  • LocationEarth

Posted 05 July 2015 - 03:25 PM

View PostREX, on 05 July 2015 - 11:08 AM, said:

Mini did you realise that you have just accused Alan Thomas of being someone who "you allege" threatened to kill you.

I'm shocked you stoop as low as to accuse ((insinuate) Alan Thomas of being someone capable of threats to kill or manipulate the reputation points system.

Alan has a lot of supporters in this forum who show their vote of confidence because of his Acc legislation knowledge, kindness, positive straight up honest attitude.

It may disappoint you very much that you and the rest of the tagteam who have slandered his good name haven't been able to delude everyone with your BULLYING.

What a shame it appears Irene has joined in on your bullying lately, she must want to be where you're headed.. (COURT)




I think you should say you are EXTREMELY SORRY and ask for his forgiveness for all the harm you have done to his feelings , reputation, ability to be dealing with his PTSD over the last decade...

I think you're going to have to explain a lot in court to do with UNSUPPORTED accusations if you don't and your tag team comrades/co conspirators will desert you,, guaranteed...Posted Image



The only people who should be worried about impending court action are Dermott and Earl.I fail to see how anyone else has anything much to worry about.
3

#19 User is offline   MINI 

  • Advanced Member
  • PipPipPip
  • Group: Members
  • Posts: 7008
  • Joined: 09-October 07

Posted 05 July 2015 - 03:58 PM

View Postangryman, on 05 July 2015 - 03:25 PM, said:

The only people who should be worried about impending court action are Dermott and Earl.I fail to see how anyone else has anything much to worry about.


Angryman

Whoever is whetu, rex, H8ACC_2013, H8ACC have a lot to worry about angryman!!

If one is not using the new law then one is certainly not restricted when it comes to needing identification to find out who they are.

Time will tell.

Mini
2

#20 User is offline   not their victim 

  • Advanced Member
  • PipPipPip
  • Group: Members
  • Posts: 10829
  • Joined: 04-August 08

Posted 27 October 2016 - 07:33 AM

Laudafinum is now in the hands of the NZ Crown

Evidence from that site is now secure and locked down to be used as evidence in Jurisdictional Issues

USA ordered a stop via godaddy website and are utlizing the 5 eyes co-operation along with the NZ Police....

The EU Data Protection Laws will drag the New HDC Act up to almost near standard

Therefore there is opportunity for forumees who were named and shamed to take individual or class action via the NZ Police in relation to at least 4 years worth of criminal harassment...
0

Share this topic:


  • 6 Pages +
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • Last »
  • You cannot start a new topic
  • You cannot reply to this topic

1 User(s) are reading this topic
0 members, 1 guests, 0 anonymous users