What's stopping him from being locked up is that he is not attacking a specific individual, as the act clearly specifies he would need to for it to be a crime. He isn't pulling aside a member of his audience, then using email or social media in an attempt to get that person to kill themselves. That's what the law is there to prevent.

That and the fact that New Zealanders aren't fucking idiots. The law states 'reasonable person', not 'if the slightest offense is taken'. It's clearly part of an act, it's clearly not directed at anyone, and it's clearly not meant to be taken seriously.

While I don't want to disparage all New Zealanders, I'm quite certain there are enough idiotic, overbearing, or corrupt officials that this law will be abused. And I'd like to stake money on this claim.

I am willing to bet 1 bitcoin (≈265 USD), at even odds, that within a year we will see an article on the front page of HN showing abuses of the Harmful Digital Communications Bill. Specific abuses may include: corporate censorship, overreactions to jokes, or people jailed for offhand drunk-posting. There are a myriad of possibilities.

If this happens, you pay me one bitcoin. If this does not happen, I pay you one bitcoin. If you're interested in this bet (or terms similar to it), let me know and I would be happy to discuss details.

I should warn you: The history of these sorts of laws is pretty bad. For example, Malicious Communications Act[1] has been used in all kinds of ridiculous cases. People have been arrested for posting images as pedestrian as a burning poppy.[2]

1. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Malicious_Communications_Act_1...

2. http://www.theguardian.com/uk/2012/nov/12/kent-man-arrested-...

As other people have noted, Kiwiland is known for more lenient sentencing and doesn't generally throw people in jail over trivial things. It still suffers from the vicissitudes of any legal system - run by humans, they're not perfect - but jail time for 'drunk posting'?

Similarly, I don't like your mechanism for success - a mere article on the front page of HN. For $265, what's to stop you writing an article and submitting it yourself? Your profile page clearly indicates your current handle as being intentionally anonymous so comments can't be traced back to you personally. And if your problem is that the law will be abused, why do you have no qualms in taking any article as being written in good faith, no matter the author?

And, even if you can provide a single counter-example, well, welcome to law. Sometimes false positives happen. That people get falsely convicted of rape or murder laws don't mean that rape or murder laws are an affront to freedom and must be disposed of. Laws are sledgehammers, not scalpels, and coming up with single counter-examples is worthless.

I'm also not personally interested in BTC. It's a farce - it's fun to play with for some and that's cool, but it's never going to be a functional currency. As I don't really find it fun (friends are fans), I've never bothered to get set up properly with it.

To sum up: no, I don't take your bet.

Edit: Writing your own article would actually be worth $530, since that's the delta between paying out and collecting winnings.

> It's only fame and prosecutorial discretion that stands between him and a prison sentence.

That a complete misrepresentation of how this law works. If Louis C.K. created a digital communication which contravened Principle 9 ('do not incite others to commit suicide') [1] then the victim might complain to the Approved Agency, which is presently Netsafe NZ [2], who mediates between Louis C.K. and the complainant.

If mediation is unsuccessful and Netsafe believes it is warranted Louis C.K. could be referred to the District Court, who hears submissions and makes orders as it deems necessary per s 11 [3] including referring the complaint back to Netsafe for further mediation. If the Court makes an order (e.g., 'remove the communication') and Louis C.K. refuses to comply he may be fined, or at the extreme end be sentenced to six months imprisonment [4] which in New Zealand would be served as home detention.

The New Zealand justice system is typically fairly lenient and lacks most of the mandatory sentencing requirements of the U.S. justice system. The District Court would not impose any significant fine or home detention unless the offending was at the extreme end of the scale, e.g. Louis C.K. incited a specific vulnerable individual to commit suicide in front of a large audience and they subsequently attempted to do so.

There is a lot more than 'prosecutorial discretion' between Louis C.K. and a prison sentence. This law is far from perfect, and maybe it'd be better if it didn't exist at all, but it's not imposing the insane wholesale restrictions on free speech that is being suggested throughout this thread.

1. http://www.legislation.govt.nz/act/public/2015/0063/latest/w... 2. http://www.netsafe.org.nz/ 3. http://www.legislation.govt.nz/act/public/2015/0063/latest/w... 4. http://www.legislation.govt.nz/act/public/2015/0063/latest/w...