Tasmanian Cops Decline To "Censor Internet" 116
aesoteric writes "Tasmania's police force has taken the unusual step of asking the public to stop alerting it to every 'abusive or harassing' comment posted to Facebook or other social media sites. The force said it was 'increasingly receiving complaints' about material posted to the sites, but sought to clarify that 'the use of technology to undertake some conduct does not in itself create an offense.'"
Dodgy headline on TFS (Score:5, Insightful)
Saying that "Tasmanian police decline" to do something implies that they are actually empowered to do so as a matter of course. I suspect the Tasmanian police cannot censor the internet, and even if they were given a court order only limited censorship could be attempted (likely with even more limited success).
I'm Telling Dad! (Score:5, Insightful)
Does this smack anyone else as really immature? It reminds me of siblings threatening to tell your parents about something. Or telling the teacher if someone is picking on you in school. Do they honestly think this is a worthy use of their police resources by having a thin skin and crying to the police about every random person that says something about them on the internet?
Re:I'm Telling Dad! (Score:5, Insightful)
It IS immature. I believe that the general public (especially Facebook users) does not develop mentally past the 14 year old stage. Sure, people get "older" (if you cut them in half and count the rings) but that doesn't mean they automatically get "wiser". I think the biggest downside here is that those people like to use their birthdate for a measure of respect they should be receiving.
Now get off my lawn!
Re:Dodgy headline on TFS (Score:4, Insightful)
That's one way of looking at it. I was looking more at the ridiculous expectations that people seem to have about law enforcement and "law" and "enforcement" and all that.
People need to give up on the "this offends me and so it is illegal" crap.
Re:The real issue... (Score:4, Insightful)
As an intermittent reader of some of the unofficial/unsanctioned police blogs that have sprung up in the UK over the last few years, I was entirely unsurprised by this story.
Complaints to the police regarding rude messages on face-book are absolutely nothing new. Most of those in the UK seem to come from the lower rungs of the social ladder and are normally couched as complaints of "harassment" (though as in Tazmania, most of the complaints fall well short of the level needed for the behaviour to be criminal).
The real story here isn't about technology or Facebook or Twitter or whatever at all. It's about the fact that large numbers of people are so bad at managing their own lives and so used to having other people (usually some agency of the state) sort everything out for them that they think it's appropriate to bring the police into mundane arguments and disputes.
Re:I'm Telling Dad! (Score:4, Insightful)
I'm game as long as you are sharing more then I have to.
Greed is inherent in behavior without capitalism which is why we have to tell children to share when they are young then tell them again not to share when they get older and start using the intertubes.
The problem isn't sharing or lack thereof. That's usually a symptom. The problem is taking - sharing is what hopefully happens after someone has already taken more than what's fair. But it's just a remedy, not a cure, and it's not even true sharing. It's unclean hands.
If a child takes the entire cake and then gives back half so his brother can get some, he shouldn't be rewarded for sharing. It wasn't his to share.
If he, on the other hand, is given a chocolate, accepts it in the faith that everyone got some, and upon finding out this isn't true shares it, it should be rewarded.
Wait, its the internet that makes people greedy.. hmm.
In some ways, unfortunately, this seems to be the case. I see more cases of people feeling entitled to anything they can get than, say, 20 years ago.
When a BBS closed or became subscription only, people would sigh and move on. If a web site closes or becomes subscription only, people will send hate mail because they're deprived of something they felt entitled to.
Yes, I would call this greed.
Re:The real issue... (Score:2, Insightful)
Honestly, it's a shame that those individuals didn't find help in time. What a waste of potential.
However, if they were prepared to kill themselves over something like that, it tells me that they were indeed in desperate need of professional help. I doubt they would survive very long in the real world without it if they would so readily kill themselves over "cyber bullying." What's needed is not censorship but for them to find help.
Re:I'm Telling Dad! (Score:4, Insightful)
I believe that the general public (especially Facebook users) does not develop mentally past the 14 year old stage.
And they think you are a computer nerd who is completely out of touch with real life and incapable of understanding human relationships to the point of understanding things like Facebook or social interaction.
This feeling is universal. Everyone else is an idiot, except the ones who agree with you. The world is full of morons, if only you were in charge or could make them see...
Newspapers discovered this was the secret to increased sales decades ago.
Public still working out where the line is... (Score:3, Insightful)
This basically boils down to something we have seen countless times over the years.
A new law came in, in response to something awful happening, someone who is being harrassed (via the internet) to the point that they commit suicide.
The police were doing what I think was the appropriate thing, realising that it was probably youths that were more at risk, started a campaign to educate them about the fact that online harrassment can be criminal. So far so good...
But society doesn't change overnight. It takes time. Right now we are at the point where we are accepting of the fact that it is indeed wrong. We are accepting of the fact that there is some line that when crossed makes it criminal. If it does not reach that line, it is still frowned upon but we should not report it to law enforcement. In people's mad dash to be politically correct and overly sensitive, they are reporting stuff that should merely be frowned upon and gotten over. Eventually they will find the appropriate equilibrium and in the mean time the police have told the public they need to push that line towards the more serious occassions of cyber-bullying.
Other examples are when sexual harrassment gained widespread acceptance people would threaten to call police over once off jokes, or a glance held for a second too long. We as a society have now (MOSTLY) worked this out, using other means of punishment, in that sexual harrassment is still frowned upon but police aren't deluged with frivolous instances.
The only bit I don't understand is that we already had harrassment laws. Why do we need a seperate law for "harrassment on the internet"? But then again I don't understand why we need separate patents for "(existing process) on the internet" either