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."

Comments

end of slashdot

[Anonymous Coward]

Slashdot might fold if that were to happen, unless they allow slashdot access from prisons.

Re:end of slashdot

[jellomizer]

I would think a better definition of troll will be needed. If we use the Slashdot definition it would be prison for anyone who think Microsoft actually has some good products. Doesn't agree with RMS view of Free and Open Source Software. Likes patents. Doesn't consider Android Linux when talking about market share. Does consider Android Linux when talking about Free Software. Thinks Religion and Science can get along, or tries to defend their religion. Claims that New Technology is better the older version. Who didn't like "Cloud Technology" before RMS said it was bad. Who Likes "Cloud Technology" after RMS said it was bad. Doesn't jump to the worst possible scenario on a sliding scale argument.

If we used Slashdot definition in essence all the people who actually think for themselves without following the general consensus would be in prison.

Re:end of slashdot

[Synerg1y]

"a carriage service to menace, harass or cause offence"

Think cyber bullying, but as with most things related to the internet, there's a massive wide grey line here.

Re:end of slashdot

[kelemvor4]

Who is RMS?

Re:end of slashdot

[kootsoop]

You're new here, huh? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Richard_Stallman

Re:end of slashdot

[TapeCutter]

the general consensus

Police were "pretty much laughing there", she added.

Re:end of slashdot

[Hatta]

I would think a better definition of troll will be needed.

No, even with an unequivocal definition of troll, this is still a horrible idea. Government censorship is more harmful than trolling.

Re:end of slashdot

[chaos_technique]

Ah, you forgot to smite grammar nazis and their semantic brethren. General consensus is a pleonasm, you insensitive clod.

Re:end of slashdot

[chaos_technique]

Wooosh?

Re:end of slashdot

[xenobyte]

"a carriage service to menace, harass or cause offence"

Think cyber bullying, but as with most things related to the internet, there's a massive wide grey line here.

Pretty much no.

You are always welcome to state your opinion, but as soon as you start spreading lies, private nude pictures etc. with the purpose to cause grief for a specific individual, it's cyber bullying and should be punish accordingly, i.e. hard and with a vengenance. There's no grey area or line here. It's pretty much black and white. As soon as it gets personal you're over line in perhaps more than one way.

Any kind of bullying is repulsive and cruel, and the cyber version just adds cowardice to the mix (the 'safe distance'). All bullies should be punished severely, both physically and through the legal system. If you stop them early, things can still be brought back on track. Later we're talking jail time (juvenile detention or similar) and transfer/relocation of the victim to solve things and that's both expensive and messy. Do not forget that a bully that don't stop after the first warning must be considered evil and ruthless and should be dealt with accordingly.

Re:end of slashdot

[Anonymous Coward]

Who is RMS?

He's just an average guy.

Re:end of slashdot

[spauldo]

You know, it'd be funny, if so many of you weren't actually stupid enough to believe this.

There's a lot of /. users. Anyone who gets some karma has mod points they can use. Anything you say will likely have someone who disagrees with you on this site. Unfortunately, some people are just a bit too quick with the "troll" tag on the moderation system. Usually other mods will compensate, but shit happens sometimes. That doesn't mean you're a troll, and no one (well, hardly anyone) thinks you're a troll unless you're actually trolling.

Some guy on another story was whining about how /. has this huge socialist bias and was made up of people who feel guilty working for corporations so they demand higher taxes and more restrictions on the GPL. He apparently just doesn't see all the libertarians cluttering up the place in here, just like you don't see all the anti-RMS, pro-Microsoft, and even pro-religion comments in here. They are there, and if they're in the minority, well, that's just the way it goes. You're going to have a minority any time there's more than a few people who disagree.

These posts are meant for discussion, not syncophantic circlejerking. People are going to disagree with you. Yes, some assholes are going to abuse the moderation system. If you don't like it, you're free to create your own private IRC channel and rant to yourself all day long where no one can disagree with you.

Re:end of slashdot

[JohnRoss1968]

I find your post offensive and threatening. What about political speech? What if I write that Mittens is a a-hole? As you said there is no grey area so ....
Is mittens an A-hole or was this a lie? Some would say Mittens is an A-Hole. Some would say that's a lie.
So should I feel like jail time is a serious threat to me now that I have said that Mittens is an A-Hole?
What if I write that religions are all bullshit. No one can prove that their religion is actually the one true religion yet everyone acts as though their religion is the one true religion. And that their religion and their religion alone is true.
Plus most religious people act, if not outright say they speak to God directly therefor their religion is the word of God and should have the weight of law.
What if you mock their religion?
What if their religion says porn is evil and a sin, would watching porn be mocking their God and their religion?
What if I just disagree with a religion?
My opinion is that you are a troll.
My opinion is that you do not understand the concept of FREE SPEECH.
My opinion is that this will be used to punish people who disagree with other people.
My opinion is this law and the people that support it are cyber-bullies and should go to jail.
or
If you are easily offended by things that are said on the internet STAY THE FUCK OFF THE INTERNET.

Re:end of slashdot

[JohnRoss1968]

BTW I love your sig.
"For every complex problem, there is a solution that is simple, neat, and wrong." -- H.L. Mencken (1880-1956) -
Perhaps you should have read it before posting.

Re:end of slashdot

[cez]

wait what!? lol, its Freedom of Speech he's talking about.... not Freedom of Punching People in the Face. What are you on about? While this is Australia we are talking about, regardless here in the US we have enough laws that cover this already but they should be treated under already relevant sections, stalking, libel etc. Big man punch hard, I bet. All religion is bullshit btw, and you are more then welcome to try to punch me in the face.

Re:end of slashdot

[KingBenny]

i'm very much offended by pictures of barbie and mickey mouse and how they affect young children these days. I think anyone posting any of that filth should be prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law. Think about the damage to those little child brains. Math is hard, mickey, don't fall for it. WTF man ?

TROLL THIS MOTHERFUCKERS !!

[Anonymous Coward]

Eat shit and die !!

Re:TROLL THIS MOTHERFUCKERS !!

[MyLongNickName]

Believe it or not, I think the parent post was on topic.

Re:TROLL THIS MOTHERFUCKERS !!

[Anonymous Coward]

As an aussie I can tell you our police are idiots - this is proof. The simple fact she doesnt even know the definition of a troll, vs someone using hate speech shows how nieve she is. 3 years of xp eating donuts does not qualify you.

Re:TROLL THIS MOTHERFUCKERS !!

[Anonymous Coward]

Too right mate. This pig can go fuck himself. Yes he deserves to die, and i hope he burns in hell.

Re:TROLL THIS MOTHERFUCKERS !!

[Anarchduke]

LMAO

Re:TROLL THIS MOTHERFUCKERS !!

[MyLongNickName]

When I posted this, the parent comment was -1 and I figured mine would get modded the same way. You can imagine my shock and amusement when not only was mine modded up to +5, but so was OP.

*shiver*

[Loopy]

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

Re:*shiver*

[swanzilla]

Follow-up: what do you suppose are some of the best ways to defend against tyranny?

Moat. Can't go wrong with a moat.

Re:*shiver*

[Joce640k]

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

...because they know if they do they'll have every whining emo adolescent in Australia constantly on the phone asking them to "do something". Pretty soon the entire system will collapse.

Re:*shiver*

[Talderas]

I fill mine with alligators. To ensure I am not liable I have signs posted every 5 ft that say "BEWARE OF MOAT ALLIGATORS".

Re:*shiver*

[Githaron]

Actually, I think it might be cool to have a moat.

Re:*shiver*

[rvw]

Follow-up: what do you suppose are some of the best ways to defend against tyranny?

Moat. Can't go wrong with a moat.

Yes you can!

Re:*shiver*

[Millennium]

That's probably not enough to protect you from liability, because it doesn't adequately explain the danger of moat alligators. I'd suggest something like this.

BEWARE OF MOAT ALLIGATORS
MOAT ALLIGATORS ARE CARNIVORES
IF YOU GO IN THE MOAT THEY WILL EAT YOU
YOU MIGHT DIE

That might work.

Re:*shiver*

[horza]

Not only do government officials get their own moats, the taxpayers have to pay to clean it. "Cherchez le vache!"

Phillip.

Re:*shiver*

[Dishevel]

Well. I have decided that at least here in the US I have already at times chosen not to say things do to fear of government (local, state, federal) reprisals.
On the current topic though...
Who is this storm trooping ex police nazi Susan McLean?
Is she that Susan McLean from Australia that killed 12 children and then ate their private parts?
Or
Is Susan McLean the Australian cop that "accidentally" killed 2 infants in a stroller?
Does Susan McLean have anything to say about her alleged rape 6 small boys in 1999?
Is there any truth to the rumor that Susan McLean is a lesbian who "likes em young"?
I just wonder if Susan McLean ever looked into a mirror and said "Susan McLean. You need to slow down on all that dope you have been doing."?
Did I just hear that Susan McLeans mother was killed by the Taliban for being a whore? Not sure if I heard that correctly.
I am currently looking into a story I thought I might have seen about Susan McLean taking bribes from pedo porn publishers and supplying children for the industry.
Has anyone any information to the contrary on this?

Re:*shiver*

[ToadProphet]

Also,

MAY CONTAIN PEANUTS

Re:*shiver*

[JustOK]

And someone will sue you because one of the signs fell on them.

Re:*shiver*

[vgerclover]

Moat alligators are known to cause Cancer in the state of California.

Re:*shiver*

[Seumas]

This sort of censorship is exactly the kind of thing the "anti-bully" organizations are actually seeking, under the guise of something we all can sympathize with (horrendous bullying). Except, instead of dealing with the actual problems and realistic solutions that can be implemented by getting adults in positions of authority to actually do something about bullying, they constantly frame it as a problem only to be dealt with by stripping anonymity and privacy on the internet along with creating laws (like seen in Britain) that make being a verbal meanie "criminal".

Re:*shiver*

[dutchwhizzman]

Moat alligators have shown averse skin reactions in a small number of participants in a controlled study, in which participants were exposed to moat alligators for a prolonged period of time. Based on this result, caution should be taken when possible exposure to moat alligators might be unavoidable. If you experience adverse skin reactions as a result of exposure to moat alligators, stop exposure immediately and consult a qualified dermatologist.

Re:*shiver*

[L4t3r4lu5]

Moat alligators are known to cause Cancer in the state of California.

Cure for Cancer:

1) Move to California
2) Kill all moat alligators.

Re:*shiver*

[JohnRoss1968]

Can moat gators be outfitted with friggin lasers? If not I would go with sharks.

Re:*shiver*

[JohnRoss1968]

I am a HUGE supporter of free speech. But I agree with you on limits and much of what you said as to what those limits should be.
You seem to be able to think. WTF are you doing here.
ARREST THAT MAN.

Cause offense - go to jail

[Anonymous Coward]

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?

Re:Cause offense - go to jail

[erroneus]

As a law abiding person, you should expect her to turn herself in.

Re:Cause offense - go to jail

[Zemran]

Politicians???

Re:Cause offense - go to jail

[Impy the Impiuos Imp]

I'm not in favor of jail time, but I wouldn't mind a Constiutional amendment allowing particularly egregious cases to be placed on the next national election ballot: "Shall soandso, who made fun of dying cancer child soandso2, be beaten by an orangutan?"

Do Not Want!

[girlintraining]

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:

___________________________________

Re:Do Not Want!

[NoNonAlphaCharsHere]

A priest, a minister, a rabbi and a polar bear walk into a bar. Bartender says: "What is this, some kind of joke?".

Re:Do Not Want!

[joocemann]

Let's stay on topic.

These are people who are misrepresenting the truth, often creating online profiles as people whom they actually are not, and that action is hurtful to society.

It's not a simple case of "I don't like that."

Done here.

Re:Do Not Want!

[dkleinsc]

That's offensive to drunk clergymen. I'm afraid you're going to have to go with:
Someone walked into a bar and said "Ouch!"

Re:Do Not Want!

[Anonymous Coward]

A horse walks into a bar. Bartender says, "Get the hell out! I've already heard that one three times this week!"

Re:Do Not Want!

[JakeBurn]

The only problem there is that there are people who's intent is to cause emotional harm. The Canadian gov't is dealing with a girl who was harassed to the point of suicide. While most of us here on planet internet seem to be soulless assholes who have no problem ignoring most of the hate, the rest of the world that is just now catching up to us on internet usage has not had decades to slowly acclimatize themselves to it. While I don't think the above mentioned law is the way to go, something needs to be done. The only reason why the internet is so filled with hate is there are ZERO repercussions. People like to act like words don't harm a person in an even worse way than physical violence but they do. Why do you think people rarely open their mouths in public but everyone on the internet is a tough guy? That person in public you just cut deeply with your words is likely to stomp your ass into the ground and not care one bit about the consequences.

Re:Do Not Want!

[vux984]

You countered your own argument:

"Could a reasonable person determine ahead of time that the behavior in question was (unambiguously) illegal?"

A reasonable person could. Sure as with all tests of reasonableness there's going to be a nebulous area between hey, that's ok, and hey holy shit you crossed a line. But so what? As long as the penalty for treading into the nebula is appropriate. (read: small -- community service, small fine, a warning the first time...) I'm fine with 'a test of reasonableness'.

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.

Right. As teens my friends and I thought it was hilarious to call that 11 year old boy a faggot every time any of us saw him - it was so funny we got the whole grade 6 to join in. It was just our thing. Why should we be at all liable in any way that it upset him to the point of depression and attempted suicide?

And now when I continually proposition my hot coworker for sex and compliment her ass? She should be flattered. But now I've got this sexual harrassment charge pending. WTF!

No free country should have a law on the books claiming that offending people are illegal, right?

So then I posted images of holocaust mass graves, except with little penises drawn on the bodies, and each one labelled a faggot. It was hilarious, so I posted it to the local jewish temple's public forum with the subject "the faggots deserved it"

Like what reasonable person could determine ahead of time that this was going to offend any one? Not me, that's for sure!

Now in all serious, I -am- a proponent of free speech, and I even defend our right to say something that offends, or even to be offensive.

But at the same time, I do think there should be tools in law for people to protect themselves from complete assholes who are just deliberately harassing them.

There IS a balance that needs to be struck.

Re:Do Not Want!

[Talderas]

That's offensive to people who walk into bars.

Re:Do Not Want!

[NoNonAlphaCharsHere]

A priest, a minister and a rabbi are discussing when life begins. The priest says "life begins at conception". The minister says "life begins at birth". The rabbi says "life begins when the kids move out and the dog dies".

Re:Do Not Want!

[bill_mcgonigle]

Cause offense?

Offensive speech is the only kind that actually needs free speech protections. Nobody bothers to challenge speech that causes no offense.

Americans used to say, "I hate what you say, but I would die for your right to say it." Now it seems to be overwhelmingly, "don't rock the boat, man. What's on TV tonight?"

Re:Do Not Want!

[Millennium]

Then make harassment a crime. This can be done without criminalizing any particular form of speech, thus preserving a right that should be absolute, and it has the added bonus of covering non-speech forms of harassment in the same law. The only losers in such an arrangement are the ones who want to silence people, and they deserve to lose.

The right to bear arms doesn't shield someone from committing crimes with a weapon. Neither need the right to free speech shield someone from committing crimes by speaking.

Re:Do Not Want!

[girlintraining]

Americans used to say, "I hate what you say, but I would die for your right to say it."

Actually, that was Voltaire, a french man best known for writing such withering critiques of certain written works that the authors would commit suicide. He said "I may disagree with what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it." Americans paraphrase it by just saying "free speech, fuck yeah!"

Re:Do Not Want!

[girlintraining]

These are people who are misrepresenting the truth, often creating online profiles as people whom they actually are not, and that action is hurtful to society.

If misrepresenting the truth is a crime, anyone who's a politician or politically active is a criminal. Creating online profiles as people who they are not means a lot of people who only use Facebook to play Farmville are now criminals. And my definition of hurtful to society depends on an objective, clear, and unambiguous hurt -- like cutting off someone's arm, stealing their car, etc. There's a clear loss there. "Someone lied to me!" isn't harming society to the extent that it needs to be regulated behavior.

And your definition completely omits from its definition of a crime the person's intent in doing those things. I consider that pretty important in determining what should be a crime and what shouldn't be. So do most criminal defense attorneys, judges, and law enforcement... they want to see criminal intent, not just "oops"

Re:Do Not Want!

[Hognoxious]

This means that if someone deliberately knocks over a person with brittle bone syndrome and they die, it is manslaughter

Because you didn't intend to kill him?

Wrong!

It's murder even if you only intended to commit serious harm (e.g. GBH). The reason for this ought to be obvious even to you.

Re:Do Not Want!

[girlintraining]

A reasonable person could.

So you really think if I round up a dozen people and ask them whether a given behavior is offensive, all 12 of them will agree in the substantial majority of cases that it's offensive (or not)? Because I've been watching the Presidential debates, and let me just say, even when not giving offense is at a premium, they're still regularly infuriating people in significant quantities. "A binder full of women" anyone?

Why should we be at all liable in any way that it upset him to the point of depression and attempted suicide?

Because being a douchebag isn't a crime. If it was, most of the people on slashdot would be on America's Most Wanted.

And now when I continually proposition my hot coworker for sex and compliment her ass? She should be flattered. But now I've got this sexual harrassment charge pending. WTF!

You're interfering with a person's ability to work, something everyone needs to do to survive. Workplace behavior is more regulated because of that. Now if you left the workplace and did the same thing you wouldn't have that charge pending. Different circumstances, different standards.

So then I posted images of holocaust mass graves, except with little penises drawn on the bodies, and each one labelled a faggot. It was hilarious, so I posted it to the local jewish temple's public forum with the subject "the faggots deserved it". Like what reasonable person could determine ahead of time that this was going to offend any one? Not me, that's for sure!

That would be poor taste. Nobody was harmed, and you didn't go on to advocate or incite violence against jews, so it would be protected speech.

But at the same time, I do think there should be tools in law for people to protect themselves from complete assholes who are just deliberately harassing them.

Most people solve this with restraining orders. The remainder usually beat the shit out of them, and the law recognizes this -- if someone punches you in the face after you call them names and/or provoke them, they will probably only get a simple misdemeanor assault charge, and not be arrested or serve jail time. It happens every day.

There IS a balance that needs to be struck

Yes, and historically that balance has been far on the side of protecting free speech, even if it's offensive, unethical, immoral, or disgusting. Speech in and of itself has a low inherent ability to harm -- in most circumstances you can walk away. In the remainder, you can get a court order to keep them away. Only in a very tiny island out of the vast ocean of things a person can say, is there a danger zone where regulation is needed. Inciting to violence, yelling "Fire!" in a crowded theatre, etc., are classic examples of unprotected speech -- because it's speech that poses a imminent danger to the life or wellbeing of others. That is the balance point.

Re:Do Not Want!

[AK Marc]

I think the difference is that if someone targets someone for harassment, it should be treated very differently than if someone takes offense at a public posting.

Most of the pushes for restrictions are after examples where someone deliberately targeted a person with the intent to cause harm, and succeeded in that goal. Then the whiners on Slashdot complain that you can choose what's offensive and the person harmed should have chosen to not receive harm from the person who intended them harm. Nice theory, but that's not how people work. and then it gets generalized to where people think it would apply to general statements about groups or made in public forums with no specific intention to harm. Because the arguement about the first case is harder, they assume the second and attack that.

Re:Do Not Want!

[vux984]

So you really think if I round up a dozen people and ask them whether a given behavior is offensive, all 12 of them will agree in the substantial majority of cases that it's offensive (or not)?

The substantial majority? yes.

I already stipulated there was a substantial grey area between "not offensive" and "obviously offensive".

And I already covered my ass there by stipulating that being "caught" in the grey area should be a misdemeanor at most, with even just a warning as a first "punishment".

You're interfering with a person's ability to work, something everyone needs to do to survive.

Wait what? I'm not interfering with their ability to work. Its "just" their "emotional reaction" causing any issues, and according to you I'm not liable for that.

Workplace behavior is more regulated because of that. Now if you left the workplace and did the same thing you wouldn't have that charge pending. Different circumstances, different standards.

No. Try it on the woman at the perfume counter at the mall. Or the pretty girl eating alone at McDonald's. You'll get nailed there too. ... Most people solve this with restraining orders...

So, rather than a fine or a warning, you prefer a straight up restraint on free speech? Ok... to be honest I'm actually fine with that, as long as we agree that being an asshole in the fashion's outlined above is perfectly legitimate grounds for a restraining order.

And of course that violations of restraining orders is properly enforced.

Re:Do Not Want!

[UnknownSoldier]

A minister, a priest and a rabbi went for a hike one very hot day. They were sweating profusely by the time they came upon a small lake with a sandy beach. Since it was a secluded spot, they left all their clothes on a big log, ran down the beach to the lake and jumped in the water for a long, refreshing swim.

Refreshed, they were halfway back up the beach to the spot they'd left their clothes, when a group of ladies from town came along. Unable to get to their clothes in time, the minister and the priest covered their privates and the rabbi covered his face while they ran for cover in the bushes.

After the ladies wandered on and the men got dressed again, the minister and the priest asked the rabbi why he covered his face rather than his privates.

The rabbi replied, "I don't know about you, but in MY congregation, it's my face they would recognize."

Re:Do Not Want!

[Caspian]

I'm sorry, but-- having been a long-time VICTIM of trolling-- I must point out that most trolling is unambiguously INTENDED to harass and to cause emotional distress-- "for the lulz". It doesn't take a rocket scientist to read some of the shit kids post on 4chan and recognise it IMMEDIATELY AND UNAMBIGUOUSLY as deliberate bullying, plain and simply-- harassment, which (yes) SHOULD be illegal.

Re:Do Not Want!

[vux984]

Harrassment already is a crime. So we need to clarify what constitutes harrassment under the existing law to ensure the forms of harrassment I outlined are covered.

But then we're just splitting hairs on semantics and legal implementation. Posting offensive messages in a forum ends up a crime either way.

Re:Do Not Want!

[BeaverCleaver]

OK, but this is not trolling. This is bullying and/or harassment.

Re:Do Not Want!

[girlintraining]

And I already covered my ass there by stipulating that being "caught" in the grey area should be a misdemeanor at most, with even just a warning as a first "punishment".

I don't like the idea of anyone going to jail because what they did was in a "grey area". It doesn't matter the size of the grey area, the standard in law is beyond a reasonable doubt. The standard is we'd rather let ten guilty men go free than convict an innocent person. I cannot and will not accept your idea that there should be "grey area" crimes. "Well sir, you were close to the speed limit, so I'm going to write you a ticket that's close to the fine you'd get for actually speeding."

Wait what? I'm not interfering with their ability to work. Its "just" their "emotional reaction" causing any issues, and according to you I'm not liable for that.

It doesn't matter... you don't have free speech in the workplace. Employers have wide latitude in what behaviors can be regulated. And it's not "just" their emotional reaction here in any event -- your constant advances interfere with their ability to do their job in the same way that children in the backseat of a car shouting "Are we there yet? Are we there yet? Are we there yet?" interferes with a person's ability to operate a motor vehicle.

So, rather than a fine or a warning, you prefer a straight up restraint on free speech?

It's not a restraint on free speech, but a restaint on the person's proximity to another person. They can quite happily scream profanities and talk about the person all they want... as long as they're more than 500 feet away.

Re:Do Not Want!

[vux984]

I don't like the idea of anyone going to jail because what they did was in a "grey area".

Copyright infringement depends on a jury interpreting whether your defense of what you did was fair use or not. That's often a grey area.

"Well sir, you were close to the speed limit, so I'm going to write you a ticket that's close to the fine you'd get for actually speeding."

The speed limit is not a grey area. Its posted and has a measurable number. (And in my opinion that's actually pretty unreasonable, because doing 102km/h in 100km/h zone is strictly illegal and you are liable for the full fine, plus points on your license, plus (around here at least) a "victim levy", plus increased insurance when you renew. Sure you can fight it, at the cost of your time off work and possibly a lawyer; but I'm on a tangent here...)

However, the police can also cite you for all sorts "grey area" stuff: "unsafe driving" is pretty much the officer's discretion; "failure to yield" is often very arguable, "drive without due care", "drive without consideration", "unsafe lane change", and one of my favorites "speed relative to conditions" where the posted speed is X, but its raining, snowing, foggy, whatever... and now the speed limit is whatever the police feel like. Not that I think its safe to do full speed on ice in a blizzard or anything, but is it 50? 30? Grey areas: all of them.

And then we have all sorts of non-moving violation stuff...

Everything from loitering to negligent homicide has a substantial grey area between "yup you were doing it" to "no, that's not that at all"

It doesn't matter... you don't have free speech in the workplace.

And you still can't do it the pretty girl who you see eating lunch at mcdonald's either.

It's not a restraint on free speech, but a restaint on the person's proximity to another person.

As applied to an internet troll, it would mean you wouldn't be allowed on such and such forums, etc.

What is the difference between a restraint on free speech and a restraint on where you speak other than semantics?

"You are free to say anything you want, as long as the people you want to talk to can't hear you."

That's rather like the idiotic "free speech zones" they herd protesters into now.

"You are free to assemble and protest! But you have to do it here in parking lot C behind the outbuilding where no one can see or hear you."

Both are restraint on free speech.

Re:Do Not Want!

[cheekyjohnson]

I'm sorry, but-- having been a long-time VICTIM of trolling-- I must point out that most trolling is unambiguously INTENDED to harass and to cause emotional distress-- "for the lulz".

And? Being offended is not the end of the world, is it? Well, it seems to be for some people, but honestly, I think people need to just deal with it.

Re:Do Not Want!

[Anonymous Coward]

OK, here's a stretch. Don't go on 4chan. It's pretty much full of adolescent punks and adults masquerading as adolescent punks. That's what really kills me about this whole topic. With some notable exceptions, most internet bullying requires active participation by the bullied. This isn't like the bully who knocks your books over walking down the hall of the Jr. High. You have to go to school, you don't have to go to 4chan, Facebook, etc.

Contrary to popular belief among 15 year olds, Facebook is not as important as studying, air, food, or outdoor exercise. It is not a de facto requirement of life that can not be done without.

Re:Do Not Want!

[brantondaveperson]

Yes that's right. Because when someone, through their actions causes such distress to an individual that they eventually take their own life, there should be no means of recourse. Because if none of those actions actually touched the person, and so were not covered by common assault, then they're all perfectly legal.

The problem with people like you, is that you think offense - in the context of a law such as the one under discussion - means to get a bit annoyed. This is manifestly not the case, any more than then term 'menace' means to growl at someone a bit, or 'harass' means to point at someone once in the street. The type of effects that laws such as this are intended to control, are using public communications networks to mount sustained, personal, and extremely damaging attacks on individuals in a way that causes very significant distress.

I'm curious as to why you'd think that people who indulge in such activities shouldn't face punishment? Simply because it's speech? As though in some way speech weren't (in the words of some slashdot poster years ago) "a real action in the world, with real consequences". If one abuses one's free speech right just to grossly insult and harass other individuals - as very often happens on the internet it seems - then I don't personally have a much a problem with punishing those people.

Re:Do Not Want!

[toriver]

I would respect free speech advocates more if they suggested these "knights" of their cause put their masterpieces on their CV for all potential employers to see. "Made Facebook page mockig dead teenager" is bound to score you a major carreer any day now... After all it shows that you care about free speech.

Re:Do Not Want!

[Prune]

Luckily, I live in Canada where the right to offend people was recently restored by parliament: http://www2.macleans.ca/2012/06/19/five-years-two-tribunals-a-raft-of-secret-hearings-a-supreme-court-challenge-how-the-battle-for-free-speech-was-won/ Good thing my country has politicians who, unlike the parent poster, value freedom of expression over political correctness.

Re:Do Not Want!

[Kupfernigk]

Chirs has said it, but I take issue with your "even to you", especially as you seem to lack a basic understanding of criminal law. Murder is killing with intent to kill, and my entire post was about the significance of intent.

For overconfident pronouncement on things you know nothing about, and your assumption that anyone who disagrees with you is stupid, I appoint you to my foes list. Love K.

Re:Do Not Want!

[joe545]

Actually it was Evelyn Beatrice Hall who said that as a summarisation of Voltaire's beliefs.

Re:Do Not Want!

[aaaaaaargh!]

I -am- a proponent of free speech, and I even defend our right to say something that offends, or even to be offensive.

Not really, because in the next sentence you say:

at the same time, I do think there should be tools in law for people to protect themselves from complete assholes who are just deliberately harassing them.

These tools already exist just about everywhere in the world and surely also in Australia. The problem is that your post does not distinguish between criminal and civil law. Harassment, libel and insults should not fall under criminal law, they should be a matter of civil law. Anybody who feels insulted can file a law suite and if he wins the case the costs are covered by the other party. That's at least what I consider reasonable. I believe that in many countries these are covered by both law systems, but that's a mistake. Harassing someone ought not be a crime even if it results in suicide. People commit suicide for all kinds of reasons, for example when they are sacked or when they are left by their partner, neither of which is a crime either. Moreover, what one person feels as harassment is a mild annoyance to another person and the standards for what constitutes a crime ought to be more objective. Car analogy: If somebody steals your car, whether it has been stolen or not does not depend on your personal feelings about it.

That's of course only my personal opinion, perhaps you disagree. But don't tell me that you're a proponent of free speech as long as you think insulting someone should fall under criminal law.

Re:Do Not Want!

[wienerschnizzel]

Sure. How about putting a caricature of the Pope in your weekly column or showing a picture of an Iranian woman in bikini? Surely you must have known that it would offend somebody. The problem is that what you described is harassment, stalking etc. All easily handled by different laws in most civilized countries.

Creating a law against 'offending someone' in general would be mostly a tool for powerful groups to shut the critics up. Just look at how the libel laws are being used in the UK: McLibel Simon Singh Case and many more...

Re:Do Not Want!

[GungaDan]

Better, shorter version:

A priest, a pedophile and a child molester walks into a bar.

Re:Do Not Want!

[vux984]

The problem is that your post does not distinguish between criminal and civil law. Harassment, libel and insults should not fall under criminal law, they should be a matter of civil law. Anybody who feels insulted can file a law suite and if he wins the case the costs are covered by the other party.

The issue there is the average civil party doesn't have any method of knowing who is harassing them over the internet.

Harassing someone ought not be a crime even if it results in suicide. People commit suicide for all kinds of reasons, for example when they are sacked or when they are left by their partner, neither of which is a crime either.

By that logic assaulting someone on the street ought not be a crime even if you break their ribs. People break their ribs for all kinds of reasons, for example when they are skiing or when they are playing hockey, neither of which is a crime.

Harassment is taking a deliberate *systematic* course of action with the *intention* to cause harm to others.

That should be illegal whether the victim commits suicide or not.

Moreover, what one person feels as harassment is a mild annoyance to another person and the standards for what constitutes a crime ought to be more objective.

What planet do you live on?
The particular crime committed in criminal homicide depends on the "state of mind of the defendant" which is by definition unknowable, and its up to the jury to determine what they think the defendants state of mind was.

Of course, the mental competence of the defendant is also a factor is also a judgment call.

And that's just for a crime where someone went from being objectively alive to dead.

Now take a crime like negligence which is loosely a violation of the duty to use 'reasonable care' taking into account the potential harm that they might foreseeably cause others.

Could that be any more subjective? Do you know what the objective standard for 'reasonable care' is? Why, its what a "reasonable person" would do...

If your going to object to law based on the fact that it rests on a subjective reasonableness clause, you are several hundred years late to the party.

Car analogy: If somebody steals your car, whether it has been stolen or not does not depend on your personal feelings about it.

Counter Car analogy:
speed relative to conditions
unsafe lane change
driving without due car
driving without consideration
reverse when unsafe
inadequate signal on turn
unsafe u-turn
fail to leave sufficient space between vehicle for passing
follow too closely
pass without clear view
unsafe pass on left
fail to pass at safe distance
fail to complete pass safely
slow driving

Are just some of the local moving violations on the books that rely on the subjective judgment of the police to decide that what you did was 'unsafe'.

But don't tell me that you're a proponent of free speech as long as you think insulting someone should fall under criminal law.

Except I differentiate between insulting someone and harassing them. If you think they are remotely the same thing then you've never been harassed.

Re:Do Not Want!

[joocemann]

How does "oops" play into the story of people deliberately falsifying information and representation in the public sphere?

Secondly, how is Fraud not a crime?

Thirdly, when did you decide to take arguments that have substantial validity and point, gloss over the relevance in reality that supports those points, and then use hyperbolic absolutes (leaving the facts behind) to make your argument seem valid? I only ask this because on Slashdot, people love to play the 'not absolutely' and 'not necessarily' style b.s. arguments in discussions that are inclusive of a variety of important topics, facts, and realities that cannot be cleanly and fully described in the context of time/space/effort of a slashdot post. By this, I mean in your own example, when did you think that you could sum up every single potential reason that the original point may be valid, as being 'oops'. That's absurd.

Re:Do Not Want!

[DiEx-15]

Didn't the US Gov recently WANT people to troll extremist sites because it "promotes" peace?

Why yes. Yes they did.

Re:Dingo(e)s

[Anonymous Coward]

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

[Dyinobal]

Sure lets all put them on a boat and ship them to an island.

Re:Sure

[Conspiracy_Of_Doves]

It's Australia. They're already on an island.

Re:Sure

[aicrules]

woooosh

Re:Sure

[MyLongNickName]

Wow.... that is the joke. You realize that Australia's purpose for the British was to have an island to ship their criminals off to, right?

Re:Sure

[kwark]

They are on the B Ark and don't even know it.

Re:Sure

[neminem]

http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/DontExplainTheJoke

Re:Sure

[Talderas]

And before that it was Georgia, IIRC. Then they had a little spat over taxes and lost it.

Re:Sure

[Hognoxious]

And then the Australians found Tasmania.

Re:Sure

[BatGnat]

The B ark is the most important, just ask us.....

Plus we get to live....

Re:Sure

[BatGnat]

I still use leaves as currency... or try to. Not many places take leaves as payment theses days....

Re:Sure

[Falconhell]

I use ninghys. Never had enough to make up a pugh though. My wallet is enormous.

*shrug*

[PeanutButterBreath]

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.

Re:*shrug*

[fche]

"Perhaps you think all governments are "ill intentioned"? (Honest question). Personally, I don't."

The road to hell is paved with good intentions.

Re:*shrug*

[Millennium]

I don't think there are very many governments out there that are truly "ill-intentioned." They're the ones you really have to watch out for.

Re:*shrug*

[Real1tyCzech]

Government: Necessary Evil.

I hear a lot of folks talk about "trusting" or having "faith" in government...and it scares the living daylights out of me. How anyone could possibly believe without a moment's thought (there's my answer) that any institution has their best interests in mind is utterly beyond me.

The institution, by definition, lives to support itself, and those that align with it. If you do not fall into 100% lock-step with said institution, it no longer serves you. Institutions do not serve individuals, they serves an agenda. That agenda may be "the betterment of society", but we're right back to there not being one single individual that is 100% in lock-step with "society". ...as such, they serve no-one.

Far more people need to understand this and have the proper disregard for their "good intentions".

Re:*shrug*

[Doctor_Jest]

Death by 1000 paper cuts. Sure there are despots and places that make skull monuments of the people they've killed, but the ones who are "just looking out for you" and who "know what's best for you" are the ones that are the most ill-intentioned, even if they don't think so. The well-intentioned try as they might, can't figure out why some people just won't jump on board. I mean, if you listen to the current political babblers on TV here in the US, you'd get the impression that they're downright flabbergasted that Romney isn't polling in the single digits or low teens. (I have one reason why... Obama killed an American Citizen with a drone.... pissing on the right of due process and innocence until proven guilty all in the name of "war on Terrah!") But I digress....

That's why the US government is dismantling the Bill of Rights piece by piece... not all at once, because "we know what's best." Fuck 'em. First we start by getting the weirdos... the people who post photoshopped images of Michele Obama dry-humping a fencepost. Then we start getting those "evil nasty pirates" who spread IP around like peanut butter. Then we go after those who aren't "tolerant" of others' beliefs and rituals.... then we get a police state that rivals Orwell's vision in size, scope, and efficiency.

So defending the trolls who are just being crass and crude is simply keeping our freedoms intact.

Re:*shrug*

[frosty_tsm]

I mean, if you listen to the current political babblers on TV here in the US, you'd get the impression that they're downright flabbergasted that Romney isn't polling in the single digits or low teens. (I have one reason why... Obama killed an American Citizen with a drone.... pissing on the right of due process and innocence until proven guilty all in the name of "war on Terrah!")

Two thoughts. First, it does depend on the station. CNN's panels have a mix of Republicans and Democrats. MSNBC and FOX are apologetically biased (FOX going as far as to demonize the rest of the media). Second, why isn't this a campaign topic? Why hasn't it been in a debate or in a Romney speech? The only reason I can think of is that he doesn't disagree with it and would do more or less the same (probably less since the whole wouldn't-have-killed-Bin-Laden thing).

I'm not being dismissive; I really wish national security (other than the Libya thing, but DHS and TSA - yes we have talked Iran) were part of the conversation because those are Obama's weakest spots. The only reason why I can think they aren't is because Romney doesn't disagree and wouldn't do anything differently.

Re:*shrug*

[PeanutButterBreath]

Far more people need to understand this and have the proper disregard for their "good intentions".

What far more people need to understand is that the American (or Australian) government is a democracy. You can point to several ways in which it is not functioning optimally, but they all boil down to the same problem -- a willfully ignorant and/or apathetic electorate. All the gripes about corporate influence, religious agendas etc., while valid criticisms of the status quo, reflect the same basic dichotomy -- either people don't bother to assess their own interests and vote accordingly, or they are and you (or I) belong to a political minority.

In a democracy, if you dislike or fear your government, you dislike and fear your fellow citizen. If you dislike or fear the very concept of government, you dislike or fear the very concept of human civilization. That's fine, but waving your arms and trying to convince those same citizens that they should fear themselves as much as you fear them, is a tough row to hoe.

Re:*shrug*

[PeanutButterBreath]

Sorry, not buying the slippery slope argument. Punishing internet bullies is no more likely to lead to totalitarianism than enforcing speed limits.

Re:*shrug*

[Real1tyCzech]

Wow. Quite the jump you just pulled off there from words like "trust" and "faith", to "fear" and "dislike"... do that often??

Oh, and in focusing on your athletics you missed the point, though I repeated it at least twice:

There is not one person on this planet that feels the same way you do about *everything*. Therefore, not even you can support your institution 100%, as your "best interests" will not always equal the best interests of the whole...even in an institution of 2, such as marriage.

I never said "fear" or dislike". I can speak for myself and do not need you failing miserably at doing it for me. ;-) I said not to trust or put faith in it. Doing so equates to "taking it for granted" and leads to the "suboptimal" conditions you have so eloquently listed.

I don't "gush" about government, and you won't see me begging it to "save us!"...but don't take that to mean that I do not believe it has it's place, as you seem to have done. It has it's place. It just needs constant reminders (and constant limitations) *keeping* it in it's place. As I said in the beginning: it is a necessary evil. One that allows for us to be able to co-exist in a civil manner.

Re:*shrug*

[reboot246]

What far more people need to understand is that the American (or Australian) government is a democracy.

No, the American government is NOT a democracy, and was never meant to be one.

Re:*shrug*

[fche]

"Trolling is deliberate cruelty and harassment."

That sounds like a circular definition, and excludes normal "trolls" who are neither cruel or harassers, like our -1 friends here on /.

"It's an ABUSE of freedom and should be curtailed."

Do you see process and slippery-slope risks, if freedoms are taken away after someone simply _declares_ them "abused"?

Re:*shrug*

[fche]

(You need a refresher on what "democracy" actually means, and how it relates to constitutional republics, such as the USA.)

Re:*shrug*

[Doctor_Jest]

Speech. It's not like driving. You go 66 in a 45, that's a ticket. How do you quantify an internet "bully"? Where do you draw the line?

Re:*shrug*

[Doctor_Jest]

many of them are utterly mistaken about what Obama has done, and drone strikes are about 1000 steps down.

Yes, because it wasn't their son... Trust me, NO president should have that kind of power. I don't care if it's Reagan, Bush, Clinton or Obama. That is a breach of his office and should be punishable by trial and prison time. You also missed the entire point... but that's okay, the astroturfing obamites are everywhere these days. And for the record, I hate Romney just as much, because he's just a white Obama. Nothing will change under either's watch, but one thing is for certain... it has gotten WORSE under Obama. If you can't see that, then you should really stop drinking the kool-aid.

Re:*shrug*

[PlusFiveTroll]

"Of all tyrannies a tyranny sincerely exercised for the good of its victim may be the most oppressive. It may be better to live under robber barons than under omnipotent moral busybodies. The robber baron’s cruelty may sometimes sleep, his cupidity may at some point be satiated, but those who torment us for our own good will torment us without end for they do so with the approval of their own conscience." -C.S.L.

Re:*shrug*

[Doctor_Jest]

ABUSE of freedom and should be curtailed.

They said the same thing about Playboy. They said the same thing about Gays. They said the same thing about violent films. (and still do). They said the same thing about cartoons of Mohammed. So, who's calling bullshit again? You're no better than the rest of the censors and "offended" if you can say with a straight face that curtailing freedom of speech because you think it's an "abuse" of freedom is a-ok and encouraged. That's the same tired argument I've heard for decades. It flies in the face of reason and what the hell freedom actually means.

The joy of the internet is you can turn it off. You can change the channel. You aren't forced to watch or read it. Freedom's a great thing, but you miss the entire boat. so I'm going to call bullshit here too, because the basic tenet of freedom of speech is that we support speech we despise. Supporting free speech when you agree with someone isn't freedom. You may not like it. Hell, I think it's distasteful... but I am not about to tell someone they can't do it because it is offensive or blasphemous. Because once you make the rules, those who you trample will come to power one day and use those rules on you.

I realize most of Europe and Australia don't have speech protections codified like we do in the US. That's a shame, because enlightenment means not burning down buildings when someone offends you. Europe claims to be more enlightened than the US when it comes to accepting things, but it seems the only thing they are "ahead" of the US on is boobs on TV (I give that a BIG thumbs up, btw) and sexual freedom (another thumb up! heh.) They clearly are battling puritanical nonsensical bullshit when it comes to offensive speech.

Re:*shrug*

[Anarchduke]

I have to say, this is a good effort at trolling.

Re:*shrug*

[JohnRoss1968]

I find your lack of vision disturbing.

Re:*shrug*

[JohnRoss1968]

"What far more people need to understand is that the American (or Australian) government is a democracy."
WRONG. Its a Republic.
If the first statement in your post is outright wrong, the rest of your post, which is based off of your first statement is meaningless.
Read a book.

Re:*shrug*

[david_thornley]

There are some problems with your reply.

First, turning the internet off is not solving the problem. A great many people use it for various professional, social, and entertainment purposes. Getting off the net would cause a certain amount of hardship for these people, quite possibly including loss of income.

Second, it doesn't necessarily matter if the victim is not paying attention, since others may. If I lie about you, and a prospective employer reads the lie, you may miss out on a good job. The hiring company is practicing good business by skipping over the possibly dodgy candidate for another of similar qualifications - after all, the employer wants a good hire, and the difference between good and absolutely best may be too small to justify digging around to verify complaints. Life isn't fair. A friend or family member may also read the lie, and may also react to it.

Third, the Internet has expanded the ability to harass considerably. To harass me in person requires being there in person, and other people will notice and likely exclude the jerk. It facilitates deception. I can't pass at all convincingly as a teenage girl in real life, but I can on Facebook, and present my thoughts in the guise of a peer rather than a weird old guy. Like some other things (like public observation), the Internet has made a difference in kind, not just degree.

Fourth, words have significance, and therefore power. If you insult me, I'll consider it as reflecting on you. It took me decades of adult life to learn to do this. Some people, such as adolescents, are particularly vulnerable. "Sticks and stones" is a nice fiction, and a good ideal, but it doesn't work for a large number of people. In setting rules, we need to consider the people we've got, not a society of wise old men and women.

While I am strongly committed to freedom of speech, the situation is not nearly as clear-cut as you present it.

Mrs. McClean

[WGFCrafty]

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.

Send a clear message - Vote 'No' on their poll

[HellYeahAutomaton]

"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?

"to menace, harass or cause offense..."

[Jane Q. Public]

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.

Re:"to menace, harass or cause offense..."

[0racle]

Australia doesn't seem to care for Freedom of Speech, so I doubt that is a really big issue to them.

You said "toeing", not "towing"

[Beryllium Sphere(tm)]

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.

Clowns to the left of me Jokers to the right

[fustakrakich]

Who says the Saudis have a monopoly on madness?

RIP Free speech

[koan]

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 you disagree with people today some call hate

[GoodNewsJimDotCom]

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.

Thereoughtabe

[carrier lost]

I find everything Susan McLean writes offensive.

If only there were someplace I could complain about her...

Start with real life trolls

[gmuslera]

Won't have space in the jail to put the internet ones, just with politics and preachers they would be full in no time

Yes well

[Dunbal]

I believe that former Australian cop is trolling us, so he would be first in line for prison!

Off with their heads

[houghi]

The last time I read about this, the person was not yelling "Put them in jail." but rather "Off with their heads!"

Fuck Mohammed Fuck Emo Bitches and Fuck You

[gelfling]

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.

lock him up

[frovingslosh]

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!

Arse about tit

[horza]

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.

Re:crooked cops

[i286NiNJA]

I think it's very interesting that some crimes far less damaging to society seem to get punished harsher than those that betray public trust.

I'm not completely against this kind of law

[Hazelfield]

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.

Re:I'm not completely against this kind of law

[valentinas]

Hitchens about shouting "fire" in a crowded theater (and about freedom of speech): http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jyoOfRog1EM
The bit about fire is just a joke, but later on he talks about freedom to listen as opposed to freedom of speech, which is quite interesting.

Someone wants something?

[Jack9]

> 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.

Re:Someone wants something?

[lostfayth]

Is this woman running for public office? She has my vote, if so!

Re:Someone wants something?

[BeaverCleaver]

The heading should be "Former Australian cop trying to drum up more business for her new company."

No Right To Not Be Offended

[Jason Levine]

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.

Wanting

[Pokey.Clyde]

He can want in one hand and shit in the other, and see which fills up first.

"...it is an offense to ... cause offense..."

[John Hasler]

Conveniently vague, isn't it? I'm sure it would never be abused, though.

Re:signs

[TaoPhoenix]

Do the signs have rounded corners? Apple might become upset.

While we're at it

[skegg]

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.

not according to wikipedia

[Chirs]

"Unlawful killings without malice or intent are considered manslaughter."

Specially if its full of oil on fire...

[crovira]

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...)

Re:Specially if its full of oil on fire...

[FairAndHateful]

What does NASA stand for? "Need Another Seven Astronauts."

I had no access to a web or a BBS at the time, but that just caused a flood of ALL of the Challenger jokes that I knew to come flooding back. There were many of them, and virtually all of them were tasteless Christa McAuliffe jokes. I don't really think that could have possibly fallen under bullying at the time, but it seems that some lawmakers want to outlaw tasteless jokes, and with the remarkably broad language in the law as described, they may be able to try.

Societies are getting ridiculous

[Vince6791]

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.

No need to distinguish between online and offline

[Supercooldude]

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?

Fair go.

[TapeCutter]

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.

In summary

[BeaverCleaver]

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.

Re:Dingo(e)s

[BatGnat]

I thought I would check the dictionary out:

Definition of GAOL;chiefly British variant of jail, jailer

Wouldn't 'jail' technically be a variant of 'gaol', not the other way around?

No

[nurb432]

We don't need a better definition, as the entire premise of restricting ones speech like this is ludicrous.

Re:No

[toriver]

It's no more restriction of speech than laws against rape are a restriction of sexual freedom. Unless you are a free speech absolutist with no compassion who ignores that speech can have consequences.

Re:No

[JohnRoss1968]

Yeah you tell a rape victim that the next time someone tries to Rape her to just log out.
You sir are either a troll or an asshole or an idiot. I am betting on all three.

Re:No

[JohnRoss1968]

After reading your post I went out to do the dishes and this gave me time to think.
YOU SIR ARE AN ASSHOLE.
You are using rape victims (without their permission I might add) as a symbol to champion your cause against free speech.
That is almost the very definition of ASSHOLE.
Hey I called you an ASSHOLE. Does that make me as bad as a rapist?
First off the right to say what you want is a RIGHT. I have every right to say what I want about anything. I don't have the right to force you to listen to it ot to agree with it. That would violate your right to freedom of speech.
Rape is not about the right to fuck whomever you choose. Rape is not about sex in the first place. Its about control and force and violence.
And yes speech can have consequences. But guess what, there are already laws covering those. And they are VERY limited so as not to trample on ones RIGHT TO FREE SPEECH.
Saying what you said about this being equivalent to rape is not only wrong, its stupid. It's cruel to victims of real rape. And it's an underhanded play to get people to agree with you.
Kind of like the ASSHOLES in Canada who claimed if you were not with them in their quest to limit rights online then you were for child-porn.
FUCK YOU AND THE HORSE YOU RODE IN ONE ASSHOLE.

Re:No

[GargamelSpaceman]

Proud free speech absolutist here. Sticks and stones can break my bones but if words can hurt me then I SHOULD be hurt. What is left will be better for it.

Re:No

[nurb432]

If you want to compare free speech to rape, you have serious issues and there is no need to even discuss this with you.

Re:No

[toriver]

Well, leaving a discussion is also a way of excercising rights I guess. There are sex crimes and there are hate speech crimes, why not accept the latter as well as the former? People have taken their lives as consequences of both.

Re:No

[toriver]

I am not, I am using a simile: that you have this reaction means you have failed to understand what I wrote, or your emotions override your ability to debate. Why the FUCK is it OK for someone to abuse speech to the point where someone for instance kills themselves over it? There are sex crimes, and there are hate speech crimes. Accept that the latter exist, even though you have never been subjected to them. Heck, you need not go furer back than the 1970s to find rape cases where the victim was practically treated as the "alluring" guilty party, thankfully we have moved away from such absurd defenses of the man's self-appionted "right to fuck"...

Re:No

[nurb432]

Hate speech isnt a crime.

An Aussie cop trying to cach a troll

[Culture20]

Is like a silk shirt on a pig.

If anything I do could be a crime...

[istartedi]

If anything I do could be a crime, then I might as well do anything.

Different meaning of "troll"

[afgam28]

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.

Not About Free Speech

[pt73]

Firstly, this is Australia, not the USA. There are no free speech protections and that isn't necessarily wrong - just different.

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.

Re:Not About Free Speech

[dyfortune]

In the late 1990s the High Court of Australia found that there was an implied right of free speech in relation to political or economic matters. So I would say we have freedom of speech where it really matters.

Re:Not About Free Speech

[cheekyjohnson]

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.

Why? If you don't have the guts to shoot yourself in the foot, then you don't deserve to have any rights. There, I arbitrary decided that not shooting yourself in the foot (unnecessarily putting yourself at risk/harming yourself) means you're a coward and that you don't deserve any rights.

What about some common sense?

[maghuys]

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?

Offense is too subjective to legislate

[neurosine]

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.

Re:Dingo(e)s

[Inda]

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.

Who is Susan McLean?

[JohnRoss1968]

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.