I DEFINITELY haven't being paying attention. The Harmful Digital Communications Act came into force over a month ago, and I've only now sat down and had a good look at it.
Already some group, the Humanist Society, is claiming New Zealand now has the strictest blasphemy laws as a consequence of the act coming into play, on the grounds that you cannot post a harmful communication against a person's religion.
It is a ridiculous notion that the new law prevents a person from being irreverent about religion - essentially the definition of blasphemy - but if I publish that the Humanist Society is being idiotic, am I in danger of posting an online communication that is deliberately harmful?
The act is designed as a weapon against cyberbullying, and that is certainly a sound and proper battle to fight. The act works against those who incite people to commit suicide, another worthy fight.
I can see the reasonable intent of the act, and there are clauses in its text that prevents people from taking frivolous action. But in the sense of a law that targets those who post messages intended to cause harm, that's a little wide-ranging.