Australia Attorney General Proposes New Laws To Stop Twitter Trolls

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Australia Attorney General Proposes New Laws To Stop Twitter Trolls

Posted by samzenpus on Wednesday September 12, 2012 @09:00PM from the tweet-nicely dept.

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."

16 of 213 comments (clear)

Min score:

Reason:

Sort:

Right... by simplexion · 2012-09-12 21:04 · Score: 5, Insightful

This isn't going to end well for Roxon.
What trolls? by rexkbh2100 · 2012-09-12 21:06 · Score: 4, Funny

Really, everyone know's trolls don't really exist! I check under every bridge I cross and I've never found one. Silly people.
The obvious questions by DiamondGeezer · 2012-09-12 21:08 · Score: 5, Insightful

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
1. Re:The obvious questions by niftydude · 2012-09-12 21:16 · Score: 5, Interesting
  
  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.
  
  --
  You can never know everything, and part of what you do know will always be wrong. Perhaps even the most important part.
2. Re:The obvious questions by Anonymous Coward · 2012-09-12 22:01 · Score: 5, Funny
  
  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.
  So, they'll have Slashdotters with mod points enforcing the law?
  Oh God! That would mean all the Linux, GNU and F/OSS critics will be put to death!
3. Re:The obvious questions by Dr+Max · 2012-09-12 22:10 · Score: 4, Informative
  
  Technically we don't have free speech in Australia.
  
  --
  Rocket Surgeon.
4. Re:The obvious questions by RaceProUK · 2012-09-12 22:33 · Score: 4, Funny
  
  So, they'll have Slashdotters with mod points enforcing the law?
  *sings* It's the end of the world as we know it
  
  --
  No colour or religion ever stopped the bullet from a gun
5. Re:The obvious questions by MysteriousPreacher · 2012-09-12 23:26 · Score: 4, Funny
  
  Imposing general Slashdot culture on history would be fun. Take the Gettysburg Address. It would have begun with Lincoln saying "I know I'll be modded to oblivion for this", and thoughtful and useful responses would be interspersed with bizarrely off topic and fanatical support or criticism of the then most popular manufacturer of buggies and saddles.
  
  --
  -- Using the preview button since 2005
Australia doesnt have Free Speech provisions by The_Myth · 2012-09-12 21:09 · 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 · 2012-09-12 21:45 · 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 · 2012-09-12 21:45 · 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
Internet only? by MavEtJu · 2012-09-12 21:17 · Score: 5, Insightful

Or will they also go after the shockjocks and the printed media?

--
bash$ :(){ :|:&};:
Re:First porst by MysteriousPreacher · 2012-09-12 21:38 · Score: 5, Funny

Institute compulsory spellchecking?

--
-- Using the preview button since 2005
Comment removed by account_deleted · 2012-09-12 23:24 · Score: 4, Insightful

Comment removed based on user account deletion
Re:People get brave by drinkypoo · 2012-09-12 23:33 · 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.'"
SLAPP suits by CuteSteveJobs · 2012-09-12 23:59 · 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