Not a Lawyer but the bill specifies harm as "harm means serious emotional distress"
engaged in showering, toileting, or other personal bodily activity that involves dressing or undressing; or
Poor Borat :(
an individual (the affected individual) who alleges that he or she has suffered or will suffer harm as a result of a digital communication:
Holy Shit. How can you prosecute for future harm when no harm has taken place?
Threshold for proceedings
(1)
An applicant referred to in section 10(1)(a), (b), or (c) may not apply for an order under section 16 or 17 in respect of a digital communication unless the Approved Agency has first consideredreceived a complaint about the communication and had a reasonable opportunity to considerassess the complaint and decide what action (if any) to take.
(2)
In any case, a District Court must not grant an application from an applicant referred to in section 10(1)(a), (b), or (c) for an order under section 16 or 17 unless it is satisfied that— (a)
there has been a serious, repeated, or threatened threatened serious breach, a serious breach, or a repeated breach of 1 or more communication principles; and (b)
the breach has caused or is likely to cause harm to an individual.
(3)
The court may, on its own initiative, dismiss an application from an applicant referred to in section 10(1)(a), (b), or (c) without a hearing if it considers that the application is frivolous or vexatious, or for any other reason does not meet the threshold in subsection (2).
(4)
The court may, on its own initiative, dismiss an application under section 10 from the Police if satisfied that, having regard to all the circumstances of the case, the application should be dismissed.
This section is actually a bit comforting. There has to be a complaint forwarded to an Approved Agency who has to rubber stamp it as harmful.
And the courts can still dismiss it if it is frivolous or vexatious.
It also requires that there be an intention to cause harm to a victim. And that it is also subject to a "reasonable person" although a reasonable person is becoming more and more triggered every day.
In my expert legal opinion it's not that bad. It's a shitty law because it doesn't know what exactly it's trying to prevent but I doubt it'll be enforce much.