Slashdot Mirror


Australia Attorney General Proposes New Laws To Stop Twitter Trolls

CuteSteveJobs writes "Australian Attorney-General Nicola Roxon has flagged new laws to end anonymous trolling via Twitter: 'Twitter should reveal the identities of the anonymous trolls who are breaking the law by abusing others online.' The new laws were proposed after trolls attacked Footballer Robbie Farah. Farah was later granted a meeting with the Prime Minister to to discuss social media abuse. Ironically today it was revealed that Farah himself had trolled the Prime Minister telling her to 'Get a Noose' on her 50th birthday."

9 of 213 comments (clear)

  1. Australia doesnt have Free Speech provisions by The_Myth · · Score: 5, Informative

    The interesting thing that a lot of Australian Internet Users miss is that we (Australians) do not have a provision garanteeing or protecting free speech. All internet posts are pretty much covered under the libel and slander laws.

    --
    The MyTh - I am a figment of the Imagination - [Im Probably even not here]
    1. Re:Australia doesnt have Free Speech provisions by Vylen · · Score: 5, Informative

      The location of the server doesn't matter when it comes to defamation law in Australia. The test case was Dow Jones & Co. Inc. v Gutnick.

      Despite the article in question that allegedly defamed Australian Joseph Gutnick, was published by an American company and provided via American servers, the case of defamation was allowed to be tried in the Australian state of Victoria. The key point being that the defamation occurs at the place the communication is received (in this case, Australia), not where it is stored.

    2. Re:Australia doesnt have Free Speech provisions by CuteSteveJobs · · Score: 5, Informative

      Farah (a footballer) has demanded new laws and the Prime Minister (a lawyer) and Attorney-General (also a lawyer) agreed. It took journalist John Birmingham to point out to them there are already laws against this: Section 474.17 of the Commonwealth criminal code creates an offense, punishable by imprisonment for three years, of using a carriage service, and yes the internet counts, in such a way that a reasonable person would consider it “menacing, harassing or offensive”.. People have gone to jail. What more do they want? http://m.smh.com.au/opinion/blogs/blunt-instrument/time-to-take-a-deep-breath-before-jumping-on-trolls-20120910-25o81.html

      Free Speech is weak in Australia because there is no bill of rights and defamation laws are so tough you can't say anything bad about anyone which is a real problem if you are a journalist, let alone a twitterer.
      https://www.efa.org.au/Issues/Censor/defamation.html
      http://www.thenewsmanual.net/Resources/medialaw_in_australia_02.html
      http://www.law.uts.edu.au/comslaw/factsheets/defamation.html

  2. Parent talking out of their arse. by mjwx · · Score: 3, Informative

    The interesting thing that a lot of Australian Internet Users miss is that we (Australians) do not have a provision garanteeing or protecting free speech. All internet posts are pretty much covered under the libel and slander laws.

    The interesting part is that this is a myth.

    Speech is one of the five fundamental freedoms that every Australian is entitled to. The other four are Association, Assembly, Movement and Religion. Feel free to have a read.

    What we don't have is a US style bill of rights, but just like the US's bill of rights Australia's five fundamental freedoms is only as good as the people who defend it (it's for this reason I believe Oz doesn't need a bill of rights).

    --
    Calling someone a "hater" only means you can not rationally rebut their argument.
  3. Re:The obvious questions by Dr+Max · · Score: 4, Informative

    Technically we don't have free speech in Australia.

    --
    Rocket Surgeon.
  4. Intimidation by mwvdlee · · Score: 3, Informative

    The identity of a supposed troll has no legitimate use to the recipient of those identities if not to take legal action.
    So if no legal action is taken, revealing identities has no justifiable purpose. Unless the "justification" is vigilante justice.

    --
    Slashdot social media options: AIM, ICQ, Yahoo, Jabber and Mobile Text. Why no MySpace?
  5. Re:The obvious questions by HJED · · Score: 3, Informative

    Unless its related to politics which is apparently covered under the constitutional right to democractic elections... Ironicaly many trolls would be able to claim their speach is political, I'm sure that this could end up with some very intresting court battles.

    --
    null
  6. Re:People get brave by drinkypoo · · Score: 4, Informative

    Trolling is saying something you don't really believe to get a response out of people, like using a plastic lure. It is inherently fraud. Saying things you do believe that you know people will respond to isn't trolling. We have a word for it here: flamebait. But you might also call it provocation. Governments hate provocation, unless they've manufactured it.

    --
    "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
  7. SLAPP suits by CuteSteveJobs · · Score: 4, Informative

    >You can say bad things all you want, you just can't be defamatory.

    Trouble is if I think you've defamed me I can take you to court and it will cost you your house before a judge gets around to making that decision. Even if you win you will only get some of your costs back from me. It will also tie you up in court for years. They are called SLAPPs Strategic Lawsuits Against Public Participation and the best way to avoid them is not to say anything bad about anyone no matter what they have done:
    http://www.uow.edu.au/~sharonb/SLAPPS.html
    http://www.edo.org.au/edonq/images/stories/factsheets/edonq_defamation_factsheet.pdf - HOW TO DUCK DEFAMATION AND SLIP 'SLAPP' SUITS
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Strategic_lawsuit_against_public_participation