New laws, fast-tracked by Justice Minister Judith Collins, may help quell the harmful, downside of "new media" that has led to people shooting their mouths off in cyber space without accountability or regulation.
This is particularly dangerous in incidents of cyber bullying, especially when the victims are children or people with mental-health issues.
New Zealand will soon have new laws which make inciting someone to commit suicide an offence punishable by a three-year jail sentence.
Using a communications device to cause harm will potentially lead to a $2000 fine or three months in jail.
Three years' jail (of which only two-thirds has to be served) for having a hand in someone's death is pretty light, I feel, and doesn't reflect the seriousness of cyber bullying.
That aside, we should applaud the fact New Zealand is leading the way with new laws and the exploration of a regulatory body to handle cyber or "new media" complaints.
Originally, a tribunal to administer complaints about cyber bullying was proposed, but complaints will instead be assigned to district courts for perusal by judges.
As a member of the "old media", newspapers are subject to NZ Press Council regulations. Critics of the press council lament that it does not have the ability to impose fines on newspapers.
Instead, punishment comes through censure of newspapers via orders to publish press council decisions, if a paper is found to have acted improperly or published improper content.
Regardless of censure, press council regulations exist to ensure newspapers conduct themselves professionally.
The advent of social media in the past decade or so has created an entirely new, unregulated forum that has dangerous consequences.
Freedom of speech is one thing - but the power of freedom of speech should not be abused to attack or hurt individuals.
It is a notion that regulated newspapers are acutely aware of, particularly when it comes to correspondence submitted for publication from readers.
We encourage readers to express their views openly, in a manner that is mature, robust, based on fact and free of unsubstantiated personal slurs.
Some readers, though, in writing with passion or fervour, do not write with legal caution or decorum.
Personally, I think that critical views expressed in letters to the editor should be views the writer would also be comfortable expressing in person, to the person they are criticising.
The advent of new media makes this even more important, I believe, because it maintains a publishing integrity within the newspaper industry that does not exist in the Facebook and blogging stratosphere.
Is it revelatory that we have the freedom to say on line what we like about who we like, and - until recently - have very little risk of comeback?
Or is it a virus that will erode society, rather than improve it? I am optimistic that the new laws will help quell the nasty "free for all" that new media has created, but it is a long road ahead.
Having the freedom to say what we like is not exactly new - certainly not in this century, anyway.
But having the freedom to say what we like to potentially massive audiences, hidden behind a keyboard, and not having to front up in person with our views - that is new. It is a dangerous scenario, perpetuated by cowards, that has gone on for long enough, and I look forward to reading of the first prosecution under the new laws.