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 22 hours 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.

[hesi]

HDCA Communication Principles

The HDCA provides some guiderails to appropriate online behaviour which are set out in the Communication Principles.

These principles provide that a digital communication should not:

1. Disclose sensitive personal facts about an individual.
2. Be threatening, intimidating, or menacing.
3. Be grossly offensive to a reasonable person in the position of the affected individual.
4. Be indecent or obscene.
5. Be used to harass an individual.
6. Make a false allegation.
7. Contain a matter that is published in breach of confidence.
8. Incite or encourage anyone to send a message to an individual for the purpose of causing harm to the individual.
9. Incite or encourage an individual to commit suicide.
10. Denigrate an individual by reason of colour, race, ethnic or national origins, religion, gender, sexual orientation or disability.

Interactions with other legislation

New Zealand Bill of Rights

Netsafe (and the District Court) must act consistently with the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act 1990. That Act provides everyone with the right to freedom of expression. However, the right to freedom of expression is not absolute. For example, it does not give someone the right to breach one or more of the communications principles, causing harm to another person. On the other hand, just because someone takes offence or is upset by a digital communication, doesn’t mean that it is a breach of the HDCA.

[hesi]

That is all from the Netsafe website.

Based on the widespread personal abuse we see on social media sites, I can only assume that there have been very few complaints if any.

I know privacy is paramount on these sites, but they do have the power to request any personal data that the site owner or administrator has access to.

I think you (CS) have this recorded somewhere on the BOAY site.

[hesi]

The NZTR Social Media policy is just a repeat of the HDCA, except it applies to license holders, whereas the HDCA applies to everyone posting.

Many companies and organisations in NZ have similar social media policies to try and encourage respectful communication online.  No big deal.

[curious]

26 minutes ago, hesi said:

The NZTR Social Media policy is just a repeat of the HDCA, except it applies to license holders, whereas the HDCA applies to everyone posting.

Many companies and organisations in NZ have similar social media policies to try and encourage respectful communication online.  No big deal.

I didn't think so. I thought it applied to everyone subject to the rules doesn't it, not just licence holders?

[hesi]

You might have to elaborate further, unless you are somehow tied to the Rules of Racing, NZTR has no jurisdiction over you

[curious]

1 hour ago, hesi said:

You might have to elaborate further, unless you are somehow tied to the Rules of Racing, NZTR has no jurisdiction over you

Well the rules apply to a way wider population than just licence holders don't they? Owners, breeders, anyone on course on a raceday, club committees etc. etc.

Edited 2 hours ago by curious

[hesi]

1 hour ago, curious said:

Well the rules apply to a way wider population than just licence holders don't they? Owners, breeders, anyone on course on a raceday, club committees etc. etc.

I don't know, perhaps someone else will know how far the net extends, and what jurisdiction NZTR has over them

[curious]

4 hours ago, hesi said:

Interactions with other legislation

New Zealand Bill of Rights

Netsafe (and the District Court) must act consistently with the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act 1990. That Act provides everyone with the right to freedom of expression. However, the right to freedom of expression is not absolute. For example, it does not give someone the right to breach one or more of the communications principles, causing harm to another person. On the other hand, just because someone takes offence or is upset by a digital communication, doesn’t mean that it is a breach of the HDCA.

This is exactly the point I am trying to make. The same thing applies to the Rules of Racing which is why I think the proposed rule change won't make any difference. Licenceholders have to adhere to a higher standard via the code of conduct that they have agreed toAbuse (legally) has a meaning. That has a way different threshold to how it is bandied about here. It has to be harmful and persistent to be abuse, not just someone claiming their feelings are hurt. It's thankfully rare in racing social media.

[Murray Fish]

2 hours ago, hesi said:

You might have to elaborate further, unless you are somehow tied to the Rules of Racing, NZTR has no jurisdiction over you

It use to be, that by being of course! you have agreed to the rules!  back in a  day it all that stuff used  to be written somewhere in most racebooks!

But as usual!  one needs to steep back and ask why to they focus on this sort of thing! what is the Kaupapa behind it!  In whose interest? At a guess, its to show that they are doing something!

The odds of them pacifying a few that they are concerned about is $1.01.  for a couple it would be BADGE OF HONNOUR!  if they are challenged!!!   Odds on it would turn into a shit storm! and the old "Streisand Effect" would kick in! If would fall off the 'racing media' into the main media.... 


The Streisand effect is a phenomenon where attempts to suppress, censor, or hide information backfire, resulting in the unintentional, widespread publicization of that information, typically via the internet. 

[curious]

Page 34 of 204
RULES OF RACING
PART I
APPLICATION, INTERPRETATION AND DEFINITIONS
APPLICATION
101 (1) These Rules shall apply to all Races, Race Meetings and all matters connected with racing, and
shall apply to and be binding on:
(a) NZTR;
(b) all Clubs and Club committees; and agents, employees and officers of every such Club;
(c) all Licensed Persons;
(d) any other person working:
(i) in or about any racing stable, Trainer’s Premises, Training Facility or Racecourse;
(ii) in connection with the care, control, transportation or management of a horse or
horses; or
(iii) otherwise in connection with horses, races or racing; [Amended 1 September 2020]
(e) all Owners, lessees and any persons comprising or having a legal or beneficial interest
(either directly or indirectly) in an Owner, lessee or Legal Ownership Entity that is an
Owner or lessee, or in a Legal Ownership Entity that has a legal or beneficial interest
(either directly or indirectly) in an Owner or lessee under these Rules, and the Racing
Manager, as applicable, thereof, and all Accountable Persons [Amended 1 September 2020];
(f) all persons seeking admission to or attending any Racecourse on which any Race Meeting
is held;
(g) all Horse Breeders;
(h) every person who in any manner directly or indirectly, by himself or any other person on
their own behalf or on behalf of any other person, does or attempts to do any act or thing
for the purpose of securing any right, benefit or privilege which they or any such other
person is not entitled to receive under these Rules, or to evade any disability of any kind
imposed on him or any such other person by or under these Rules;
(i) every person who aids, abets, counsels or procures a breach of these Rules (and such
person shall be liable to the same penalty as is provided for the actual breach);
(j) every person who so acts as to bring himself within the purview of these Rules; and
(k) all Adjudicative Committees and Appeals Tribunals and Training Disputes Tribunals.
[Amended 1 September 2020]

[hesi]

Thanks, that pretty much clarifies it

[hesi]

So, there are a number of posters, many anonymous on social media who are renowned for their personal attacks on people.  How would they be encompassed by the application of the rules

[curious]

1 hour ago, hesi said:

So, there are a number of posters, many anonymous on social media who are renowned for their personal attacks on people.  How would they be encompassed by the application of the rules

In my view, the "personal attacks" would have to involve the use of "insulting and abusive" words prohibited by the rule but that would have to be at a level that met the standard of being a breach of the BOR.