Slashdot Mirror
Former Australian Cop Wants Jail For Internet Trolls
beaverdownunder writes "A former police officer in the Australian state of Victoria has called on law enforcement to prosecute creators of hate pages on social media following Facebook's decision to close down a page mocking Jill Meagher, the 29-year-old Melbourne woman abducted and killed last month. Susan McLean, who spent 27 years with Victoria Police before launching her cyber safety consultancy three years ago, said police have the ability to prosecute the creators of pages that are in breach of Australian laws but appear to be unwilling to use it. 'There have been many cases in the UK where these people have been hunted down and charged and jailed. We need to do that in Australia.' Under section 474.17 of the Commonwealth Crimes Act, it is an offense to use 'a carriage service to menace, harass or cause offense,' punishable by three years in jail."
Slashdot might fold if that were to happen, unless they allow slashdot access from prisons.
Eat shit and die !!
Someone needs to take this stupid nazi cunt Susan McLean into the outback and stake her down so that dingos can chew her face off. Although if she was with the police for 27 years she's obviously well into middle age and she probably not terribly attractive considering that she's being still called "Ms." She might be so fucking hideous the dingoes wouldn't be able to stomach her.
The world is a big, mean, scary place full of ill-intentioned people who will take advantage of the uneducated and the less-vigilant.
s/people/governments/ig
Question: do you think it is easier to defend yourself against hateful onslaught by ill-intentioned individuals or against governments that will take away your life, liberty and property just because you aren't toeing the party line? Follow-up: what do you suppose are some of the best ways to defend against tyranny? /popcorn
I know I'm wasting time and space, by pointing out that if this fascist law were to be enforced, that would be the end of free speech. This police woman's remarks offend me and have been published on the Internet, so when can I expert her to be prosecuted?
nuff said
a carriage service to menace, harass or cause offense,' punishable by three years in jail."
Cause offense? Your existance offends me! Your funny-colored hair offends me! The fact that you're a man, woman, human, or bovine offends me! See, that's the problem with "cause offense" -- it's entirely subjective. It depends on the recipient. No free country should have a law on the books claiming things that are offensive are illegal, anymore than people should be liable for the emotional reactions of others. When you make something criminal, you need to be specific about the behavior. "Entered house with force and intent to steal." That's provable, objective, and fairly unambiguous. "Caused emotional distress" can't be proven, it's totally subjective, and highly ambiguous. In any criminal test, you have to ask yourself: Could a reasonable person determine ahead of time that the behavior in question was (unambiguously) illegal?
Kill this law with fire, and while you're at it, tell the legislator to fuck off, eat a bag of dicks, and that his face is ugly. But be sure to put a smiley face at the end... we wouldn't want to sound... offensive. In other news, please enjoy this politically, culturally, and sexually correct joke:
___________________________________
#fuckbeta #iamslashdot #dicemustdie
I want jail for crooked cops. The only repercussion for crooked cops seems to be "internal investigations" or kopbusters. Where are the independent checks and balances?
I wish to subscribe to your newsletter, but it's like choosing between potatoes and potatos, tomatos and tomatoes: you pickin' up what I'm layin' down, bro' ?
Sure lets all put them on a boat and ship them to an island.
I'm all for it as long as it applies to everyone. Debt collectors have threatened and harassed me, even when I owed nothing.
As someone pointed out in a different story, US is a peculiar nation in the world with an almost absolute freedom of speech (just don't yell "fire" in a theater). Don't get me wrong, I like it and I'm glad that dissenting speech is protected and wish that was viewed elsewhere in the world as well.
However, we must remember we're not the center of the world. UK doesn't guarantee the same protection (libel for example); Germany - can't talk about Nazis; India; and of course, everyone's favorite beating child: China (self-explanatory).
Where am I going with this? Something along the lines of don't judge other cultures/ countries. They may be English-speaking, but they're not Americans. If anything, Aussies align themselves more with the Brits than Yanks.
It isn't the United States, there is no free speech ammendment.
Question: do you think it is easier to defend yourself against hateful onslaught by ill-intentioned individuals or against governments that will take away your life, liberty and property just because you aren't toeing the party line?
That depends very much on what systems of control and accountability are in place, in either instance.
E.g., I know that either an anonymous stranger or government agents can invade my home or remove my access to my own property. That said, I also know which is more likely to happen. I also know my chances of having such a wrong (if it is indeed a wrong) being redressed in either instance.
Bonus, I know which is going to help me right any wrong committed by the other.
I notice you specify "ill-intentioned individuals" and "governments". Perhaps you think all governments are "ill intentioned"? (Honest question). Personally, I don't.
Who thought it was a good idea to have an animated "pong" logo? I want to read stories and comments, not be distracted by a ball bouncing around...
Mrs. McLean is super mean, her IQ is but two
Her husband married this hog
Cause' she was surrounded by fog
And now they live in a zoo
Sue me.
"Poll: Should the creators of online hate pages be prosecuted?"
No. People can spew whatever hate they want, and if you don't wish to view it, go to another web page.
Too simple for a cop to understand, no?
Terrible law. Once you start making it illegal to "cause offense" to anybody, you have effectively shut down any pretense to freedom of speech.
In the U.S., "offensive" speech is particularly protected by our 1st Amendment, according to the Supreme Court, for the simple reason that non-offensive speech does not need protection.
A grateful world sends its thanks that there is one person left who knows the difference and uses the correct phrasing, the one that actually makes sense.
No one gives a #%$ what Law Enforcement in OTHER English speaking countries think.
Really. It'd bad enough with the gestapo wave by our own cops.
Besides, we're the only English speaking country who still has a working Freedom of Speech.
The cops here will not put me in jail for denying the Holocaust, calling Muslims or Jew pathetic worm bait,
or in the above similar case making fun of Amanda Todd online (I was moved by her video...).
However, when our own cops start charging newspaper editors for "Retaliation" like some US cities do
to individuals for posting on social media mocking said cops, then ITS ON!!!
Crazy Horse
Disparaging the boot is a bootable offense!
Who says the Saudis have a monopoly on madness?
“He’s not deformed, he’s just drunk!”
Although we may not like what people say I find the whole "prosecute them" mentality to be frightening, it starts like this and pretty we are given a little book of acceptable terms to use.
"If any question why we died, Tell them because our fathers lied."
Just look at US politics today. If you have a differing opinion than someone else today the other side will accuse you of hate. Once you go down the road of punishing haters with jail, suddenly you're on the road to jailing you political opponents for disagreeing with you. Congrats son, you're on the road to Tyranny.
God spoke to me
I find everything Susan McLean writes offensive.
If only there were someplace I could complain about her...
XKCD:Xeric Knowledge Comically Dispen
As an official spokesperson for a TATIS (Trolls Against Trolling International Society) I would like to voice my support of Susan McLean's plan! Trolling is a horrible act of public violation, not unlike rape or genocide, that maliciously offends hard-working honest folk that just want to mind their own business! Trolls pouring into living rooms of everyday citizens hiding behind anonymity of the internet is a real danger, and can happen to anyone - you, your neighbor, YOUR CHILDREN!
Won't have space in the jail to put the internet ones, just with politics and preachers they would be full in no time
I believe that former Australian cop is trolling us, so he would be first in line for prison!
Seven puppies were harmed during the making of this post.
The last time I read about this, the person was not yelling "Put them in jail." but rather "Off with their heads!"
Don't fight for your country, if your country does not fight for you.
.org
I live to see you witness the sexual murder of your entire family before someone tears your eyes out with duct tape. Legislate that, cunt.
Under section 474.17 of the Commonwealth Crimes Act, it is an offense to use 'a carriage service to menace, harass or cause offense,' punishable by three years in jail."
I'm very offended that he would suggest this. In fact I find it menacing and feel harassed. Lock him up!
I'm an American. I love this country and the freedoms that we used to have.
Bro? Just how many broes you got?
In related news, the UK government chastened by the bad publicity following the needless prosecution of people exercising their free speech or even making jokes on Twitter, stated "There have been many cases in Australia where these people have not been hunted down and charged and jailed. We need to do that in UK".
The government has launched a three year inquiry into whether the use of common sense could be a viable tool to be used by the prosecution services in deciding whether to jail people for telling bad taste jokes on social media, diverting funds from less important crimes like rape and murder.
Phillip.
Property for sale in Nice, France
While I'm definitely against censorship and a big supporter of freedom of speech, I still think it's reasonable to set certain limits to it. Long before the Internet there were several laws that can be seen as limiting free speech:
- Defamation. If you maliciously spread false rumours about someone, that constitutes a crime in many jurisdictions.
- Perjury. You're not allowed to lie under oath.
- Causing danger to others (not sure about the English term for this). It might be illigal to shout "fire" in a theatre, to take a classic example.
To uphold free speech we must protect it from abuse. As long as the wording of the law is clear and precise and proper trials are held, I think laws like these are acceptable. Online bullying and harassing are big problems today, so you need to see both sides of the coin. If you're making life a living hell for someone and constantly send them harassing text messages or slander them on Facebook, you can't expect to hide behind free speech.
Note that I still strongly disagree with any kind of law that tries to limit free speech that's being "offending". That's bad for two reasons: 1) What's offending is different to different people and 2) it can be used all too easily to silence inconvenient voices.
You say Dingos, and I say "AAAAHAHHG WILD DOGS ARE EATING OFF MY FACE!!!"
who's really going to believe an American dictionary on the proper plural form of an Austrailailailain word?!
the preceding comment is my own and in no way reflects the opinion of the Joint Chiefs of Staff
> Former Australian Cop Wants Jail For Internet Trolls
Why is this news? I know a woman who thinks everyone should get free gummy bears. Her opinion isn't important either.
Often wrong but never in doubt.
I am Jack9.
Everyone knows me.
Are some of these sites people set up offensive? Sure.
Are some of the people who set up these sites horrible people? Probably
Should they be locked away for making a website? In most cases*, no.
* If the person is advocating violence then that should be an offense. You have the right to say "People in Group X are stupid." You don't have the right to say "Let's round up everyone in Group X and put bullets through their brains." In addition, some of the trolling goes beyond offensive comments and lands into scary. If you're tracking people down and posting Google Earth views of their houses, or publishing information about what school their kids go to, you've crossed the line and there should be some stalking/harassment penalties invoked. This would be above and beyond setting up a "So-And-So Is A Horrible Person" website.
My sci-fi novel, Ghost Thief, is now available from Amazon.com.
He can want in one hand and shit in the other, and see which fills up first.
This law has been on the books for many years. The only thing this officer is doing is suggesting that it should be applied for harassment over the internet. When you have cyber bullying causing kids to kill themselves something like this would be immensely helpful. We cannot simply assume that a law such as this would be used for censorship but then that seems to be the typical knee jerk slashdot reaction, this law has not been used to censor anyone so you can't just assume that it will after many years since it has received a little media attention.
Conveniently vague, isn't it? I'm sure it would never be abused, though.
Warning: this article may contain humor, sarcasm, parody, and perhaps even irony. Read at your own risk.
Do the signs have rounded corners? Apple might become upset.
My first Journal Entry ever, in 8 years! http://slashdot.org/journal/365947/aphelion-scifi-fantasy-horror-poetry-webzine
Could we also actually PUNISH police when they do the wrong thing? Such as beating or even killing citizens.
Instead, we conduct investigations, the outcomes of which we already know (the officers are exonerated, more training and investment is proposed).
Twice this year I've seen senior police front the media and express their full confidence and support of officers accused of excessive force ... before an investigation, and before they've seen any footage of the event.
I'm all for paying police awesome salaries. I'm all for police having rights beyond what ordinary citizens have (e.g. stopping cars and breath-testing the driver). I believe police deserve respect for doing a dirty and, often dangerous and thankless job. But when they clearly cross the line -- *clearly* cross the line -- we do need to mete out punishment. And I don't mean suspensions on full pay.
"Unlawful killings without malice or intent are considered manslaughter."
Seriously...
The dweeb's trying to legislate humor.
Most of it is very human and always of dubious taste.
EG: After Columbia shuttle fateful meeting with a O-Ring weakness, what the FIRST THING I saw on the web? What does NASA stand for? "Need Another Seven Astronauts."
This is another futile attempt to regulate people reactions. (Ask the Taliban how their campaign to stop girls from getting an education's going...)
MSBPodcast.com The opinions expressed here are my own. If you don't like 'em... Think up your own stuff.
This place is LOADED with trolls - which is FINE by me, except the wussbag weasels that troll here can hide by ac posts (when they have regular "registered 'luser'" accounts)... I'd LOVE to handle it myself, provided you could find out WHO downmodded you (which, of course, takes a registered 'luser' account).
* As far as I am concerned? That's all this site needs.... I can do the rest.
(However, THAT will never happen - it probably comes from those that created this place, being wussbag weasels themselves, lol! You know the kind: You banged their women on them, & they just "sat there" like the "not men" they are... lol!)
Hope this pisses some of you off... it's INTENDED to!
APK
P.S.=> Worst part is, the shitbrains call ME a troll - well, show me ONCE where I 'started up' with someone. Show me ONCE where I wasn't just correcting mistakes or misconceptions of a poster (usually some *NIX head spouting utter bullshit).
However, IF I were a troll?
Then, the idiots around here are "little piggies" I just consume & laugh about, ala the scene from the film "TROLLHUNTER" -> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TLEo7H9tqSM
(Funnier than hell imo) @ position # 1:21 on the YouTube player control there in that link (funnier than hell)...
... apk
People just need to develop a thick enough skin to ignore those who lose interest once they're ignored. All it takes is the realization that you don't have to let your feelings be hurt by words.
But I suppose it's easier to just start an arms race where self-righteous assholes jail loudmouthed assholes, and we'll all end up in a nice, big jail full of assholes.
How the hell do you get bullied on the internet? seriously. How borderline retarded do you have to be to get bullied on the freaking internet? This isn't something that's face to face. Shit! Just delete your facebook messages, emails, etc... For crying out loud don't use your real fucking name on the internet, retards. I read somewhere where a 14 year old teen boy stripped on the web cam because some dude somehow forced him through the chat to do so, how the hell does this happen? Are humans really becoming this fucking stupid, at 14 I was not this fucking stupid. There is something wrong with this decade where people have become retarded pansies killing themselves because someone on the internet hurt their feelings, sheesh. Now these anti-bullying dickheads all around the world are pushing for their governments to stifle speech. Obama was trying to blame that muhammad film on the Libya attacks and I wonder why. Free speech and privacy has been under attack in the western world for the past decade, fucking communist shit heads.
Comments made online should be treated the same way as comments made face to face. Would saying something hateful to someone IRL result in jail time? In most cases no, at least not in the US. The Westboro Baptist Church's picketing of dead American soldiers comes to mind. I don't think there's anything a troll can say online that matches that. But most other countries don't put the same importance on freedom of speech. How do we address hateful comments made online by, say, an American to a Brit?
It's funny because it's true. If all laws were enforced with the same zeal as murder, civilization would end. The real mission of the police is to keep the peace, the courts enforce the law, the court has the right to take down a page if it thinks the page may prejudice the case. The Aussie cops are pretty blunt about these demands, they have stated on numerous occasions in all states, they are not interested in chasing internet trolls. They will however record your complaint in case the situation devolves into a real life conflict. Their standard advise is to ignore them and they will go away.
Besides, if the cops did start chasing seriously offensive trolls, surely they would have to start by arresting Andrew Bolt and tazering Alan Jones for refusing to drop his microphone, with the trolls communications in disarray they could send the swat team into the trolls fortress (AKA - Parliament).
Seriously though, I think to a large extent Aussies, (even those with power over you), believe in a single overriding, (and suitably vague), right we refer to as a "Fair go" (AKA "fair suck of the sav"), just like "free speech" it has to be both given and received by the majority for it to work as advertised. Even in Parliament this week our PM was given a "Fair go" when she defended her dignity, the dignity of the position she holds, and the right of the Speaker of the House to a fair trial. Abbot and the Libs to their credit "copped it fair" by remaining silent, the speaker did the honorable thing and stepped down voluntarily. Of course, after that subtle display of civilization was over, everyone immediately went back to what apes do naturally - throwing turds.
And did you exchange a walk on part in the war for a lead role in a cage? - Pink Floyd.
Won't someone *please* think of the children!!
A few things strike me about this article:
1. Does 474.17 of the Commonwealth Crimes Act _really_ try to ban "causing offence?" That offends me!
2. The media seems to be a bit mixed up about the differences between trolling, bullying, and harassment. trolling is all about getting a reaction, not even necessarily a negative one. A troll would go to an Apple forum and say "I want to buy a Galaxy Tab" and then enjoy the reactions of the forum users saying that it's a bad idea. A troll would go to Slashdot and say something about Windows ME being the best OS ever. This is pretty different from targeting an individual or a family for harassment, and it's certainly not hate speech. On a Venn diagram, there may be a slight overlap between trolling, harassment, and bullying, but they're typically very separate things.
3. Some former cop has left the police and now has a "cyber-safety consultancy." Is it any surprise that she wants to spread FUD in order to grow her business? This is like me selling tiger insurance and and then spreading rumours about runaway tigers. It's a damn shame someone gave this obvious shill any airtime.
sustainable living
Why oh why do we think that locking people up for being arseholes is a good thing? It costs a lot of money and doesn't solve the problem.
Definition of GAOL;chiefly British variant of jail, jailer
Wouldn't 'jail' technically be a variant of 'gaol', not the other way around?
We don't need a better definition, as the entire premise of restricting ones speech like this is ludicrous.
---- Booth was a patriot ----
Is like a silk shirt on a pig.
http://www.blogworld.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/09/troll.jpg
I asked if you were ever on topic even ONCE where I posted first & you began trolling me! The result?
Well, lmao - You ran from answering -> http://it.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=2198230&cid=36418054 since you were NEVER on topic once there...
* Now, for the "coup de grace" - being off topic is a CLASSIC troll indicator... & YOU REFUSED TO ANSWER in that link above, You TROLL!
APK
P.S.=> I must thank you this time though - for being stupid enough to try "trolling me" yet again... lol, since your own words & one of the VERY DEFINING CHARACTERISTICS OF TROLLS, is being off-topic...
... apk
My immediate and extended family consists largely of cops or retired cops.
Every single one of them - current and former cops - believe somebody should be locked away for something, and all of them have some pet "Oughta be a law!" peeve, including such "crimes" as trolling, and mockery, and "disrespect".
And I guarantee you that if you ask any cop, or anybody who knows a cop, they will tell you the exact same thing.
So tell me again why this "story" submission merits acceptance by Slashdot's so-called editors?
Oh right: the ex-cop in this "story" is Australian, and we all know how much Slashdot "editors" seem to love that country, these days.
See subject-line: LMAO!
* I haven't laughed that hard in a long time...
APK
P.S.=> Thanks for the laughs - succinctly put, & very apt of you...
... apk
Australia is close behind the UK in the ugly combination of nanny state
bullshit and police state idiocy.
Fuck this ex cop, he is an idiot.
If anything I do could be a crime, then I might as well do anything.
For all intensive purposes, "whom" is no longer a word. That begs the question, "who cares"?
it is an offense to use 'a carriage service to menace, harass or cause offense,'
That sound like distribution of modern art.
fuck you pig.
The word "troll", as used by the media and politicians, seems to have a slightly different meaning from the way it has traditionally been used. It's kind of like how the word "hacker" changed from "someone who hacks code" to "someone who breaks into computer systems".
To me, a troll is a person who tries to start trivial arguments on message boards. The goal is to say something that is obviously silly to most, but still be subtle enough that some people "bite". An example would be talking about "blinker fluid" on a car forum - car guys obviously know that you don't need to add any fluid to your indicator lights, but n00bs often get sucked it.
But then there's the type of "troll" that makes the news. Examples are the losers who post hateful or disgusting images on Facebook memorial pages for the recently deceased. Or the guy who took a topless pic of Amanda Todd and tracked her down every time she tried to change schools to get away from it. It's not really "trolling"; it's stalking/bullying/harassment.
It's a shame that the media is conflating trolling and harassment. Trolling is and should be legal, and harassment should and does carry jail time. It doesn't matter whether it's online or in real life.
While I'd defend someone's general right to free speech - as most Australians would - I won't defend it for people expressing things - especially hateful things - anonymously. If you don't have the guts to put your name to what you say and to cop the free speech back, then you don't deserve the right to speak in the first place.
So to the law in question. It was originally written with telephones in mind. It's purpose is to place a big stick over behaviours that are hard to track. The ex who rings their former partner in the middle of the night from a payphone every night for a month, etc.
In the case in point, a women was raped and murdered - a very rare thing in Australia. The mocking of this person no doubt by anonymous hard to track people is not free speech. When there is no face behind the words, it is cowardice wanting to provoke without taking the heat. If a society wants to seek them out and punish those kinds of people, I think they ought to be able to.
Clearly, saying that you don't like person X and person X can do Y to themselves is quite different to laughing at dead person D and glorifying act C that was done to person D to indeed make person D dead. It seems to me that censorship is seen as an ultimate evil in the internet community and therefore we should throw the baby out with the bathwater, and not try to find a solution where unacceptable behaviour is handled in an appropriate manner. If a person said things like this in on another platform, he or she will face consequences, but due to the anonymous nature of the internet, most of these consequences are removed. This in my opinion needs to be rectified. To prove my point, a high percentage of people in the slashdot community will disagree with me, and indeed even go so far as to flame me and dislike me based on my opinion, and by posting this comment anonymously, no one will be able to 'prosecute' me in the community, even though prosecution will consist of remembering my name and disregarding my future comments, However, I will not do so, because one must be prepared to face the consequences. Which the cowardly person who created the site initially will not have to do. So I'll end this post with a question, Why so little outcry about the coward who spewed his crap on the internet? Why is do we glorify the lawless and chastise the lawful?
They passed laws like that years ago to stop people from making harassing phone calls, but a face book page doesn't harass you unless you choose to go to it and read it. This is like saying that Fox News is harassing me and causing me distress, or that someone should be prosecuted for transmitting offensive pr0n over the television because I signed up for it and watched it. Change the channel, and better yet, don't sign up for face book and put yourself out there for everyone to harass you.
Most people don't appreciate the seriousness of putting yourself out there on the internet. I've had people recognize me in person from the internet and it's very creepy. I've also recognized people and when I mentioned it to them they banned me and said stop stalking them. This was a person that advertized where they live and work on the internet. I wasn't stalking them, I just happen to live near the store they work at told them I mentioned that I recognized them from the internet. The guy is really strange, by the way, but it's not stalking when you're putting precise details and locations about yourself all over the internet for everyone to read. it is creepy to have people recognize you in real life, but that's your fault.
But seriously, don't fuck him. He shouldn't be getting action.
You have free speech but the Government can punish you for what you say.
If you can't handle the trolls, then stay off the internet. Or at the very least, stay off the social network sites.
To punish or limit a person in any way just because they make offensive remarks is not a slippery slope. Ir is a sheer cliff on Mount Everest. People can be offended by almost anything. Mention Christ and an atheist might be highly offended. Mention atheism and some Christians would froth at the mouth. To live in freedom requires that one be willing to be shocked, startled,disgruntled, and even humiliated. And you even have to be willing to have your wife and kids offended as well. Without agreement on that the streets would be in riot and a war like condition.
Besides offending some people is just so much fun.
Saying 'Let's fuck.' could be complimentary and appropriate to one person in one instance, and offensive or even menacing in another. You shouldn't, for instance, use this phrase in most job interviews. If you're the type of person who has to learn this the hard way, so be it. We must hold onto these diminishing rights, stripped away by nanny state laws. Trolls are a symptom of much larger issues. They don't exist because of the internet. It is the site moderator who should decide how to deal with them, and isn't in the pervue of any government. It is a terrible mistake to allow any government to dictate taste.
I use the spelling gaol. I've been trolled(?) for using it on here. It's not a common spelling these days, but when I was reading books written from 1945 onwards, gaol was the only spelling used.
I'm English. No fucker outside of this country can question my use of the Queen's English, even though she's a miserable witch.
This post contains benzene, nitrosamines, formaldehyde and hydrogen cyanide.
lololol
What is know about this person, Susan McLean?
I think if we are going to hear her side of this we should know about the person who is asking that our freedom of speech be limited or taken away.
She is a FORMER police officer.
Why former? why did she leave the force? Did she quit on her own or was she forced out?
What is her record?
Does she have a record of violating people rights?
Does she stand to gain financially from this?
Is she connected to people who stand to gain financially from this?
What do the people who know her think of her? Do they think she's a good decent person or just a Nazi under a different mask?
Is she married? (I ask only to see if someone was/is willing to put up with her or is she so bat-shit crazy no one wants to be around her if they don't have to be)
Does she have any personal reasons for her stance? Was a friend or loved one harmed and then someone said something cruel about it online? (If you want to see how that can change a person there is no better example than Nancy Grace. Just typing that name makes me want to puke)
Someone should start a webpage of information about people like this that want to take away our freedoms so we all know what kind of people we are dealing with.
Which is exactly what the government wants. Anything that anyone finds offensive can be grounds for imprisonment ...
No what the government wants is to supply you with your meds free of prescription costs. Please get a grip on reality. They are not out to get you, for a start it costs too much to keep you locked up.
I find police statement ... offensive to my belief in free speech.
Well you can't be offended then, given this was not a police statement. It was a statement by some guy who used to be a policeman in the past but is now a cyber safety consultant.
I will be starting a civil prosecution ...
You can do that if and only if you ride to court on a pink unicorn being led by the tooth fairy.
If it were possible to "start a civil prosecution" don't you think the cyber safety consultant would be doing precisely that?! It's a criminal offence bozzo, ie. only the state can prosecute. What the ex-copper is doing is bitching that the state isn't using s474.17 to prosecute internet griefers (a purpose for which it was never enacted). "Naughty government, why won't you lock up the trolls when the Murdoch media (ie the Telegraph) demand that you do!"
Make an effort to get in touch with reality some time soon mate.