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

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.

*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*

[horza]

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

Phillip.

Re:*shiver*

[ToadProphet]

Also,

MAY CONTAIN PEANUTS

Re:*shiver*

[vgerclover]

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

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?

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!

[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!

[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!

[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."

Sure

[Dyinobal]

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

*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*

[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*

[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: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: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?

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.