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 !!

[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.

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:*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*

[ToadProphet]

Also,

MAY CONTAIN PEANUTS