gisw13_chapters

world. The gender inequalities played out in anonline environment mirror the inequalities in thestreet – online violence plays on the same sex andgender-based power relations. But new complexitiesalso arise, so that it is not a simple transfer ofpower relations and forms of rights violations.A further risk is that the new agency will havelittle oversight and knowledge of the emancipatorypotential of the digital environment and the empowermentof women. The associated risk is that,through a narrative of “protection” of women fromharm, online discussion which is deemed harmfulbut which would otherwise have led to valuableoutcomes for women will be removed from thedigital space. One example is the use of the digitalenvironment for coalescing discussion aroundabortion rights and sexual and reproductive healthand rights. Some state actors would define discussionof abortion as objectionable or obscene or mayeven consider it appropriate to intervene to protectthe foetus. This would be a particular concern giventhe age limits in the bill and could affect youngwomen’s access to sexual health information. Anotherexample is whether politically and sociallycontentious reproductive issues will be reframedas obscene and complainants seek to have theseremoved from the digital sphere. This would alsohave significant impact on activism and could affectaccess to vital information about health services forwomen.A second issue relates to the legal test in thenew bills for material deemed grossly offensiveto a “reasonable person”. The legal standard of a“reasonable person” has been highly contestedin feminist legal critique, which analysed this as agendered male standard, which has defined reasonablenessthrough the looking glass of masculinity.Associated with masculinity are “protection” narrativesthat extend to the protection of womenfrom harm by attempting to reduce their exposureto objectionable or obscene material. Applied inthe online context, the subjective and politicisedtests for objectionable, obscene or offensive materialcould exclude women from viewing sexuallyexplicit material which may actually be focused onincreasing their power, pleasure and agency insexual relations. Women have the right to claim andmaintain the online space as a place where they canactively engage in challenging and changing normativeassumptions about gender, sex and sexuality.The bills’ application is unclear and therefore posesrisks for advocates.A third and related issue is how women makingcomplaints of online harassment will be treatedby offline agencies, including the District Court, inthese cases. There is little reason to believe that theapproach of the courts (still largely informed by normativegender ideals of appropriate masculine andfeminine offline behaviour) would provide an appropriateprocess or response for complaints fromwomen about online conduct.The new agency will need to be careful that itsprocesses are not similar to court processes whichare often harrowing and traumatic for victims. Aquick review of comments online, for exampleon blogs, suggests that women are not engagedin discussion on the bills. If women are excludedfrom the public conversations about the content ofthe bills, it is very unlikely that their online interestswill be represented in ways which give themagency and which are empowering and enabling oftheir rights.Despite these issues, a number of the proposalsmay be useful for women who are victims ofviolence online. For example, the proposal to allowcomplaints about disclosure of personal facts orinformation may enable action to be taken againstonline violence which is not currently adequatelyprovided for (such as sharing of intimate photoswithout consent or disclosure of information designedto humiliate). Many of those in support ofthe proposal point to its use to prevent or resistcyber bullying (a major concern for many New Zealanders),to help protect children and young people,to ensure that abusive recording and distributing ofintimate filming (such as on mobile phones) can beproperly addressed, and to protect the vulnerablefrom incitement to suicide.Conclusion and action stepsThe digital sphere provides a critical site for transformingrelations, but there is a danger that, in thename of protecting women from harm, “keepingthem safe” from objectionable or obscene materialwill simultaneously reduce the transformativecapacity of the digital sphere and reduce womento digital victimhood. Rather than a space fordemocratic dialogue, for challenging inappropriatebehaviour and developing in situ solutions andresponses to online violence, the bills empower astate agency to do this on an individual’s behalf.This approach takes away the opportunity of usingthe digital sphere as a site of social transformation.Exclusion from the digital sphere, exclusion from atransformative space, can occur through a variety ofmechanisms, including a lack of considered, robustfeminist and gender analysis of policy and legislativeinitiatives associated with increased statecensorship. We cannot let this happen.181 / Global Information Society Watch