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."
This isn't going to end well for Roxon.
Really, everyone know's trolls don't really exist! I check under every bridge I cross and I've never found one. Silly people.
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?
Tubby or not tubby. Fat is the question
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]
Or will they also go after the shockjocks and the printed media?
bash$
Institute compulsory spellchecking?
-- Using the preview button since 2005
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.
The irony is that if Nicola Roxon posted this on twitter it would have had to be removed due to trolling. Because really, how do you draw the line between trolling and comments you dislike or anger you and your fat mother?
A 'singular oddity' is an event that cannot be explained and only happens when you are alone.
Trolling is in the eye of the beholder. I'm sure when Chanology was going on, Scientology would have LOVED a law like this.
I'm Rocco. I'm the +5 Funny man.
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?
So you think you have free speech because a government web site says you do? Let's look at that a little deeper:
... ", ..." (which is true, assuming there's a law that says a soldier is allowed to kill someone else, and the "Australian" in question in my sentence happens to be one, and feel like killing an enemy...)
http://www.immi.gov.au/living-in-australia/choose-australia/about-australia/five-freedoms.htm
" Australians are free, within the bounds of the law, to say or write
Sounds good, but you can do anything within the bounds of the law. Here's an equivalent sentence I just made up:-
" Australians are free, within the bounds of the law, to kill anyone they like, at any time
Their quote continues:
" Free speech comes from facts, not rumours "
Which I could legitimately re-write as so:-
" Australia has laws to prevent you from saying anything you cannot prove. You are not free to spread rumours which you suspect but cannot prove because you are missing information (more on that below)." And God helps anyone who gives you that missing information!
And more:
" and the intention must be constructive, not to do harm. "
LOL. You have the right to speak out, so long as you are constructive to your opponents and do not harm them.
Sounding less and less "free" to me...
It continues:
" 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. "
At what point do we draw the line and drop the word "Free" entirely I wonder?
And it ends with a doozy:
" Freedom of speech is not an excuse to harm others" (even if they deserve it!)
So basically, you can do anything that's as fucked up and stupid as you like, because nobody is allowed to tell anyone else about it, because it might harm you...
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
http://www.canberratimes.com.au/opinion/political-news/staffer-could-face-10-years-for-sharing-slippers-diary-20120706-21mna.html
Comment removed based on user account deletion
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.'"
However the constitution does specifiy the right to democratic elections and the High Court has rulled that this means political speach can't be censored.
The problem with that idea is that all speech is political. Every action, including claming to refuse to take a political stance, is political if it affects others, and refusing to take a political stance does that — it is an implicit vote for the maintenance of the status quo and a continuance of current downward trends.
This is one thing that America really got right. Not quite on the first go, but hey.
"You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
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).
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.
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.
Which is key to what is being discussed here.
Calling someone a "hater" only means you can not rationally rebut their argument.
>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
On behalf of Australia I'd like to apologise to the rest of The Internet for our politicians' stupidity.
However, in our defence, we are once again only seeking to win the America's Cup equivalent for the 'world's most ridiculous internet-focused legislation'.
We will, of course, be forced to hand it back very shortly after acquiring it.
Business/App ideas are like arseholes: everyone's got one, they're mostly shit, but very rarely they contain a diamond