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."
Eat shit and die !!
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?
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
Sure lets all put them on a boat and ship them to an island.
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.
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.
If something is so important that you feel the need to post it on the internet... It probably isn't that important.
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.
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.
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.
Definition of GAOL;chiefly British variant of jail, jailer
Wouldn't 'jail' technically be a variant of 'gaol', not the other way around?
"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.
"For every complex problem, there is a solution that is simple, neat, and wrong." -- H.L. Mencken (1880-1956) --
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.
Those who can't do, teach. Those who can't teach either, do tech support.
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.