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."

Comments

Re:The obvious questions

[niftydude]

Who gets to decide what is, and is not, trolling? Will trolling be a crime, and under what statute? How much will the "troll patrol" cost?

Clearly, if they don't like you, everything you say will be considered trolling, and you will be prosecuted to the full extent of the law, if they do like you, everything you say will be considered witty, charming, innovative and magical.

Don't allow extensions to business

[andrew3]

My main fear with this type of law is that it could be extended to protect businesses.

Just imagine how many people Microsoft would be able to sue, for causing offence?

Of course, the other concern is the exact interpretation of "causing offense" is not clear. This is bad for Free Speech, as other posters have mentioned.

Another person talking out of their arse.

[mjwx]

James Ashby who is now facing 10 years in prison: "Mr Slipper's lawyers suggested James Ashby could have breached sections of the Commonwealth Crimes Act, which prohibits public servants from publishing or communicating internal documents without authorisation." Free speech my arse

Interesting that you have already tried and convicted Arby. Considering that article specifically states that the Federal Court has not decided to refer the matter to the AFP.

Also funny how you neglect to mention that the charge is not "saying what he liked" it's a violation of the Commonwealth Crimes Act. From the fine article you posted

Mr Slipper's lawyers suggested the former media adviser could have breached sections of the Commonwealth Crimes Act, which prohibits public servants from publishing or communicating internal documents without authorisation.

So he didn't exercise free speech, he used his position to leak sensitive documents to political rivals. He was given access to senstive information and abused that trust, name me a single nation that wouldn't consider that at least in part, criminal. But nice try to make it all about "TEH FREEDOMS(TM)".

Besides this, he hasn't even been charged and the maximum sentence is two years but we all know he wont even get a slap on the wrist if convicted (he's lost his public service job already though).

" There are laws to protect a person's good name and integrity against false information. There are laws against saying or writing things to incite hatred against others because of their culture, ethnicity or background. "

This does not inhibit your speech. You can still make false and misleading claims against other people. This clause merely says you can and will be held accountable for what you say.

And it ends with a doozy: " Freedom of speech is not an excuse to harm others" (even if they deserve it!)

Really, a "doozy".

So you honestly expect to be able to hurt other people and then hide behind "MAH FREEDOMZ(TM)" when they want to harm you back.

Get real sunshine. Free speech is not here to protect people who abuse it, this is the "fire in a crowded theatre" bit. You can shout "fire" in a crowded theatre but you are responsible for the panic it creates.

Finally, I just love how you left out this part.

We do not censor the media and may criticise the government without fear of arrest.

Which is key to what is being discussed here.