NZTR's Social Media ( jackbooted, totalitarian) crackdown...

[Thomass]

Talk about Trump like TOTALITARIANISM!

I can understand personal abuse of officials et el but "humiliate...or that is harmful to the reputation of the NZ racing industry"

Give me a break!  What about video of thoroughbreds being assaulted over the head??  A ban for upholding 

 SOCIAL MEDIA Social Media platforms can be used to abuse participants within the racing industry. NZTR has reviewed the current Rules and found that they could be improved to more effectively address this type of harmful behaviour. As a result, NZTR is proposing an update to Rule 801(1)(s)(ii) to ensure that all forms of abuse on social media are clearly covered. These changes are intended to better protect everyone involved in the industry from online abuse. NZTR proposes that Rule 801 be amended as follows:

801 (1) A person commits a Serious Racing Offence within the meaning of these Rules who: (s) either by themselves or in conjunction with any other person: (i) does or permits or suffers to be done any act which an Adjudicative Committee deems fraudulent, corrupt or detrimental to the interests of racing; or

(ii) at any time writes or causes to be written (including in any form of electronic or digital communication), publishes or causes to be published, or posts or causes to be posted on any website, medium, forum, platform or any social media or social networking service, or utters or causes to be uttered, any insulting or abusive words with reference to a Tribunal, NZTR, committee of a Club or a member or Official of any such body or a Stipendiary Steward or Investigator, or Registered Medical Practitioner;

(iii) without limiting sub-Rule (1)(s)(ii) of this Rule, posts or causes to be posted on any website, medium, forum, platform, or any social media or networking service, that is available to the public, or any section of the public, any comment, image, video, digital or electronic communication, that may insult, humiliate or cause serious emotional distress to any entity or person referred to in that sub-Rule or to any Licenceholder or other industry participant, or that is otherwise harmful to the reputation or standing to the New Zealand racing industry;

[Murray Fish]

25 minutes ago, Thomass said:

or that is harmful to the reputation of the NZ racing industry"

lol, reality doing a fine job on that sort of thing!!!

28 minutes ago, Thomass said:

that may insult, humiliate or cause serious emotional distress to any entity or person

for some.  "water of a ducks back" others "all rather booo who ho.."

One of the (to me) unwritten rules that I like and followed on Channel X when it first started was "If you were going to be commenting directly about a 'named person' in racing that you would throw in you actual name at the bottom!

 

otherwise, it will be a bit of fun seeing this 'policy' (which is always Trumped by Statutory Law!) policed! 

[All The Aces]

I am assuming this relates to licence holders only Thomas. 

[Murray Fish]

1 hour ago, All The Aces said:

I am assuming this relates to licence holders only Thomas. 

Either or, someone should frame a book!  

[curious]

Any person covered by the rules isn't it?

[curious]

3 hours ago, Murray Fish said:

otherwise, it will be a bit of fun seeing this 'policy' (which is always Trumped by Statutory Law!) policed! 

I don't really see how the proposed new clause makes any difference to the current rule. This was tested rather frivolously a decade ago in the Morton case which concluded that he was expressing his personal view which, under the Bill Of Rights, he was entitled to.

And to quote McKechnie that "Action before the Judicial Control Authority must be with reference to the conduct of racing or behaviour by licensed persons which goes beyond the expression of criticism or scepticism. We do not consider those boundaries have been crossed."

 

[Murray Fish]

32 minutes ago, curious said:

. We do not consider

I presume that one of the every day  topics  @HeadOffice,  around the  coffee machine   is "Did you see what X said on x social media" , enough of that sort of thing can then generate its oh heat!    Flashing the Current Available Punishment  is worth trying!!! Show those trouble makers you MEAN (purrr) Business! 

A pro active approach!  (something this Industry is not known for,,,) would be to monitor the active sites/groups, Note what simple factual information is being misrepresented! Politely provide the correct facts etc.  For the 'rabid voices',  they are actually very easy to deal with, case by case!   Often leaking them some juicy false info can bred some internet fun!

[Chief Stipe]

59 minutes ago, curious said:

I don't really see how the proposed new clause makes any difference to the current rule. This was tested rather frivolously a decade ago in the Morton case which concluded that he was expressing his personal view which, under the Bill Of Rights, he was entitled to.

And to quote McKechnie that "Action before the Judicial Control Authority must be with reference to the conduct of racing or behaviour by licensed persons which goes beyond the expression of criticism or scepticism. We do not consider those boundaries have been crossed."

 

They are changing the rule if you read the first post again.

The Morton case was tested against the rules at THAT time.

Given the crap vitriol spewing from some individuals I support any measure to rein that in.  However I would have thought the Harmful Digital Communications Act would cover most issues.

[curious]

5 minutes ago, Chief Stipe said:

They are changing the rule if you read the first post again.

The Morton case was tested against the rules at THAT time.

Given the crap vitriol spewing from some individuals I support any measure to rein that in.  However I would have thought the Harmful Digital Communications Act would cover most issues.

No. They are adding. 801(1)(s)(iii)

You are missing the point I think. The Rules of Racing do not supercede any statute as MF suggested. In this case, in particular, the Bill of Rights. Changing the rule doesn't alter that.

[Chief Stipe]

31 minutes ago, curious said:

They are adding. 801(1)(s)(iii)

So adding is not changing?

[hesi]

45 minutes ago, Chief Stipe said:

They are changing the rule if you read the first post again.

The Morton case was tested against the rules at THAT time.

Given the crap vitriol spewing from some individuals I support any measure to rein that in.  However I would have thought the Harmful Digital Communications Act would cover most issues.

No doubt aimed at the personal vitriol that almost continually spews forth from Wightman.  Also clearly aimed at the site owners or administrators........watch out Herlihy

And some of these sites are stupid enough to think senior members at NZTR will engage them on their sites

Edited 1 hour ago by hesi

[curious]

1 minute ago, Chief Stipe said:

So adding is not changing?

Yes but that's what I said. Not really my point though. They can change the rule, but I fail to see how it can make any difference to its effect. The proposed addition has long since been covered by the current rule.

[Chief Stipe]

32 minutes ago, curious said:

You are missing the point I think. The Rules of Racing do not supercede any statute as MF suggested. In this case, in particular, the Bill of Rights. Changing the rule doesn't alter that.

You seriously think that the Bill Of Rights has any clout?  What specifically in the Bill Of Rights expands allowable speech beyond other statutes?

Does the BOR allow @Thomass to spout off on social media abusing individuals?  You surely must admit the Kevin Morton went very close to the line in expressing his "oponion"!

[curious]

5 minutes ago, hesi said:

No doubt aimed at the personal vitriol that almost continually spews forth from Wightman.  Also clearly aimed at the site owners or administrators........watch out Herlihy

Not quite sure where Colin would have breached this new rule. He only shares his opinion, not that I always agree with it. Maybe gets some facts wrong. No law against that.

Edited 1 hour ago by curious

[curious]

2 minutes ago, Chief Stipe said:

You seriously think that the Bill Of Rights has any clout?  What specifically in the Bill Of Rights expands allowable speech beyond other statutes?

Does the BOR allow @Thomass to spout off on social media abusing individuals?  You surely must admit the Kevin Morton went very close to the line in expressing his "oponion"!

Where did @Thomass abuse someone? I don't read a lot of this stuff if I'm not interested in the topic.

[curious]

6 minutes ago, Chief Stipe said:

You surely must admit the Kevin Morton went very close to the line in expressing his "oponion"!

Not at all. Nowhere close. 

[hesi]

1 hour ago, curious said:

Not quite sure where Colin would have breached this new rule. He only shares his opinion, not that I always agree with it. Maybe gets some facts wrong. No law against that.

Look closer

[Murray Fish]

1 hour ago, Chief Stipe said:

You seriously think that the Bill Of Rights has any clout?

YES 

Especially if you are rich entitled fella, a litigative sort!  who wants to feel vindicated by putting up a fight!  I'm sure most Barristers$ would be happy to take action on their behaves!  yee ha!

[curious]

I have I think. Not my style but that doesn't invalidate the opinion or message.

So it's ok for you to make disparaging comments about those you disagree with but not for them to do so here or elsewhere?

Edited 2 minutes ago by curious

[Murray Fish]

1 hour ago, curious said:

Not at all. Nowhere close. 

especially so 'knowing' his background!  his style!    or course, other factors were at play...

 

[curious]

3 minutes ago, Murray Fish said:

especially so 'knowing' his background!  his style!    or course, other factors were at play...

 

It was a decade ago. Don't think there's been a similar case brought since.