NZTR's Rule 801 Update - Serious Racing Offence - public comment scope broadened

[Chief Stipe]

From NZTR Rules Update Bulletin:

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.https://bitofayarn.com

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:https://bitofayarn.com

(s) either by themselves or in conjunction with any other person:

1. does or permits or suffers to be done any act which an Adjudicative Committee deems fraudulent, corrupt or detrimental to the interests of racing; orhttps://bitofayarn.com

2. 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;https://bitofayarn.com

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;

[Chief Stipe]

Just now, Chief Stipe said:

or that is otherwise harmful to the reputation or standing to the New Zealand racing industry;

That is the wide ranging clause and the most subjective.

The rest of the rule changes wouldn't affect most people who comment online as but for a hardcore of serial abusers they behave politely and with common decency.

[curious]

7 minutes ago, Chief Stipe said:

That is the wide ranging clause and the most subjective.

The rest of the rule changes wouldn't affect most people who comment online as but for a hardcore of serial abusers they behave politely and with common decency.

Doesn't really matter if someone thinks it's "harmful to the reputation or standing to the New Zealand racing industry" does it? We've discussed that in relation to the Morton case. Doesn't and can't override the Bill of Rights.

[Chief Stipe]

2 minutes ago, curious said:

Doesn't really matter if someone thinks it's "harmful to the reputation or standing to the New Zealand racing industry" does it? We've discussed that in relation to the Morton case. Doesn't and can't override the Bill of Rights.

Yes and you fail to get the point.  Morty didn't cross the line.  The Bill of Rights doesn't allow you to abuse, insult and degrade people does it?  

[curious]

10 minutes ago, Chief Stipe said:

Yes and you fail to get the point.  Morty didn't cross the line.  The Bill of Rights doesn't allow you to abuse, insult and degrade people does it?  

Yes, but I don't think you understand the law. Just because someone claims to feel hurt, insulted or abused, doesn't make it legally so. That was the whole point of the Morton ruling. 

[Chief Stipe]

41 minutes ago, curious said:

Yes, but I don't think you understand the law. Just because someone claims to feel hurt, insulted or abused, doesn't make it legally so. That was the whole point of the Morton ruling. 

Anyone can make a claim about anything but then they need to provide evidence to support their claim.

How does the Harmful Digital Communications Act work?

[curious]

19 minutes ago, Chief Stipe said:

Anyone can make a claim about anything but then they need to provide evidence to support their claim.

How does the Harmful Digital Communications Act work?

Yes. Anyone can express an opinion about anything or anyone. The HDC can not supercede Human Rights Law either.

[curious]

Have there been any cases go to court under the HDC Act? They generally have to go to Netsafe first don't they? I don't know much about it. Hardly likely to apply here though. Have to be a very extreme situation.

Edited 1 hour ago by curious

[Chief Stipe]

13 minutes ago, curious said:

Yes. Anyone can express an opinion about anything or anyone. The HDC can not supercede Human Rights Law either.

Aren't you confusing the Human Rights Act with the Bill of Rights Act?  One primarily focuses on discrimination and the other freedom of expression.

[curious]

3 minutes ago, Chief Stipe said:

Aren't you confusing the Human Rights Act with the Bill of Rights Act?  One primarily focuses on discrimination and the other freedom of expression.

I didn't think I'd mentioned the Human Rights Act. Sorry for the confusion if I did.

[Chief Stipe]

8 minutes ago, curious said:

I didn't think I'd mentioned the Human Rights Act. Sorry for the confusion if I did.

Well many people get confused between the two.  The BORA (Bill of Rights Act) doesn't confer as many rights as people think.  It is directed at Goverment and its Agencies and binds them to certain principles.

That said neither Act is paramount and laws can be passed that are inconsistent.