Grey Areas in Disinformation
Background: The collation of grey areas below have been drawn from lessons learnt by the Interagency COVID-19 group for misinformation and online
harms.
1982
Act
Free speech that respects
Extremism, Objectionable Content,
of the rights or reputation
Hate Speech, Terrorism (crosses
of others and does not
legal threshold).
impinge o
n national
Grey Area
(Speech that disrespects the rights
security or public order
or reputation of others and does not
(order public), or of public
impinge on
national security or
health or
morals.
public order (order public), or of
public health o
r morals. )
Grey Areas fal broadly into:
Information
1. Ability to detect content
2. Allocation of responsibility
3. Ability to remove content - Clear parameters and mandate to remove false /misleading information quickly
4. Ability to penalise, restrict and set precedent.
5. Ability to quantify action (if taken)
Official
Balance of ability to respond is predicated on reactive rather than proactive. Currently, most areas of recourse require the public to report disinformation
and misinformation. Proactive work is purely comms based and social media communications but the majority of work in this area is reactive work.
the
GREY AREA - Gap / Issue
Legislation / Policy
Agency / Mandate
Mitigation underway
Comment
Content regulation legislation has Classification Act
Department of
Content review
not been revised to modern
1993/Amendment Act 2015 Internal Affairs –
expected end of 2022.
technology.
Broadcasting Act 1989
Content Regulation
Timing – this is a long-
under
term initiative.
No clear exception to Freedom of Freedom of Speech -
Content Review will
Exceptions include
Speech being disinformation and section 14 of the New
assist in this area.
obscenity, fraud, child
online harms.
Zealand Bill of Rights Act
pornography, speech
1990 (BORA)
integral to illegal conduct,
Released
Disinformation and
speech that incites
Misinformation fall in between
imminent lawless action,
the spectrum of free speech and
speech that violates
extremist material and
intellectual property law,
1982
objectional content.
true threats, and
commercial speech such as
advertising.
Act
Defamation that causes
harm to reputation is
a tort and an exception to
free speech. This does not
adequately cover doxing.
Media systems/algorithm fasten No requirement for social
Government
Reliance on Social
on to the most controversial and media platforms to regulate Social Media
Media platforms to
polarising views and amplify the algorithm against this
Platforms
enact legislation which
content
content
regulates their
Information
content and users.
Advertising Standards Authority
The ASA apply the ASA
Advertising Standards Reactive – requires a
ASA review of function and
has not been adapted to react to
Advertising Codes
Authority
complaint from the
operation.
the speed of modern technology
public
and online advertisement.
Timeliness – review of
Official
complaint could take
weeks whilst false /
misleading
the
information is
circulated.
Narrowly applied
decision – only specific
advert is banned.
under
Not operational i.e.,
outcomes are not
enforceable in a
traditional sense.
Often
Released
Online Harm is non-traditional Any
Police
An example of this is
crime. Police are not set up to
doxing/online
deal with online harassment like
harassment not being
they are to deal with in-person
a traditional crime.
1982
harassment
This does not fall
clearly into their
remit.
Act
Must have crossed the
threshold of illegality
for Police to be
involved, which is
problematic as the
legislation does not
cover online harms.
Financial Regulation of Groups –
IRD?
Most groups are run
Legislation against
Information
often dis/misinformation is a
like charities, some
Disinformation actors
vehicle for other monetary
are registered
would have difficulties
ambitions.
companies. There is
around proving Intention –
not regulation around there is no test. Difficulties
the money, who is
around punishing someone
funding and
who is detached from
Official controling the reality. Therefore,
funding.
monetizing off
No tax is being paid.
disinformation could be a
the
clear area.
No Agency mandate for the
operational
under
Current legislation does not
Nil
Netsafe
Nature of the people
support mass harassment
posting – mass harassment
– our legislation does not
support mass harassment.
Released
It is designed as a tool to
measure individual.
1982
Use of Government
Flags, Emblems, and Names
The communications
Communications logos and
Protection Act 1981
team is responsible for
branding is easy and
monitoring use of
Act
enforcement is low
branding.
However, to date
there has been no
legal action against
Individual online harassment is a
Netsafe
S19 Cviil sanctions that Long process with many
long process to prosecution
the one District court
hoops whilst person is
make rulings on.
generally under
People have to get a
considerable emotional
report done by Netafe stress
under the HDC before
Information
they can gain recourse
through the court
system.
Inability for individual
Government
Comms team screen
The paradox of wanting to
communications to monitor and
Communications
Official comments and hide remove or block someone
screen government social media
comments with key
for vile comments when
because of Freedom of Speech
words or phrases.
they are voting, taxpayer
the
and Freedom of Expression
Blocking occurs rarely. and deserve access to
information.
Admin heavy work to
review this information.
under
Why is it a problem?
Released
• Platforms increased in use. Harmful content is being seen on platforms as they become more popular e.g tik tok.
• Increased use of tech because people are employed.
• Increased confidence because of use of tech at work – it’s a gateway into communities online that puts them in conversations that they would not
1982
have seen before.
Act
Freedom of Speech: Article 19 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights states that "everyone shal have the right to hold opinions without
interference" and "everyone shall have the right to freedom of expression; this right shall include freedom to seek, receive, and impart information and
ideas of all kinds, regardless of frontiers, either orally, in writing or in print, in the form of art, or through any other media of his choice". The version of
Article 19 in th
e ICCPR later amends this by stating that the exercise of these rights carries "special duties and responsibilities" and may "therefore be
subject to certain restrictions" when necessary "[f]or respect of the rights or reputation of others" or "[f]or the protection of
national security or of public
order (order public), or of public health or
morals".[3]
Information
Official
the
under
Released
