Australia Attorney General Proposes New Laws To Stop Twitter Trolls 213
CuteSteveJobs writes "Australian Attorney-General Nicola Roxon has flagged new laws to end anonymous trolling via Twitter: 'Twitter should reveal the identities of the anonymous trolls who are breaking the law by abusing others online.' The new laws were proposed after trolls attacked Footballer Robbie Farah. Farah was later granted a meeting with the Prime Minister to to discuss social media abuse. Ironically today it was revealed that Farah himself had trolled the Prime Minister telling her to 'Get a Noose' on her 50th birthday."
Right... (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:will the opposition reverse the bad things (Score:3)
One of my too-many projects (and making me overall too distractible!) is an idea called "Durable News". The basic idea is to take a dis-satisfied wish such as yours today, file it, then after time passes and said opposition govt does appear, whether they do indeed reverse part/all of said proposals.
What makes such a project tricky is that political cycles are fairly long, while we are moving to a social media culture that can't remember last week, so by the time that answer comes in, the tricky part is reme
Re: (Score:2)
It makes NO difference.
For example, here in Canada, a while ago, maybe 8-1 years, the federal Liberal Party published a small 'Red Book' containing their promises for what they would do if elected. They got elected, promptly said "We can't do that, now that we're in power and actually know what's going on". They were even re-elected 4 years later, even with other parties pointing to this 'Red Book'.
Re: (Score:2)
what is probably the least most popular government
I sense an undecided voter. ;)
What trolls? (Score:4, Funny)
Re: (Score:3)
You just weren't checking the hip and trendy bridges. Typical Linux user.
Re: (Score:2)
The greatest trick the troll pulled was ... goatse?
First of all, I can't unsee what goatse was pulling.
The obvious questions (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:The obvious questions (Score:5, Interesting)
Who gets to decide what is, and is not, trolling? Will trolling be a crime, and under what statute? How much will the "troll patrol" cost?
Clearly, if they don't like you, everything you say will be considered trolling, and you will be prosecuted to the full extent of the law, if they do like you, everything you say will be considered witty, charming, innovative and magical.
Re:The obvious questions (Score:5, Funny)
Who gets to decide what is, and is not, trolling? Will trolling be a crime, and under what statute? How much will the "troll patrol" cost?
Clearly, if they don't like you, everything you say will be considered trolling, and you will be prosecuted to the full extent of the law, if they do like you, everything you say will be considered witty, charming, innovative and magical.
So, they'll have Slashdotters with mod points enforcing the law?
Oh God! That would mean all the Linux, GNU and F/OSS critics will be put to death!
Re:The obvious questions (Score:5, Funny)
So, they'll have Slashdotters with mod points enforcing the law?
*sings* It's the end of the world as we know it
Re:The obvious questions (Score:5, Funny)
Imposing general Slashdot culture on history would be fun. Take the Gettysburg Address. It would have begun with Lincoln saying "I know I'll be modded to oblivion for this", and thoughtful and useful responses would be interspersed with bizarrely off topic and fanatical support or criticism of the then most popular manufacturer of buggies and saddles.
Re: (Score:2)
We never would have left the caves.
"Spears? Arrows? Pfft! Shiny nonsense for lazy people! Running up to a sabertooth tiger or mammoth or potential wife and bashing it with a rock was good enough for me and it's good enough for you kids! Now get off my patch of dirt!"
Re: (Score:2)
We never would have left the caves.
You're an adult male and you don't have a cave? - get one, they are (historically) very cheap at the moment. If a cave girl moves in and wrecks the decor, get a small cave out the back and tell the little monkeys to stay out of it.
Re: (Score:2)
You made me choke on my beer.
Re: (Score:2)
don't forget the goatse links. or maybe they'd just be goats, I'm not entirely sure.
Charcoal etchings of goatse.
Hm, disturbing thought, that...
Re: (Score:3)
And whether they like you or not will be dependant on whether what you say is trolling or not.
At what point you enter this circular reasoning is optional, but the result is the same; restrictions on free speech.
Re:The obvious questions (Score:5, Informative)
Re:The obvious questions (Score:4, Informative)
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
Technically we don't have free speech in Australia.
yes, you keep making laws to keep that from happening...
Re:The obvious questions (Score:4, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
What do you mean, who? /. moderators get to decide [slashdot.org]
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
The same people who decide what is and isn't harassment: the victims who report it. And then the police either say "yep" or "nope."
The difference is that "on the internet" harassment can be blocked. In "real life" that can be much more difficult.
Re:Who gets to decide what is trolling? (Score:2)
Fortunately the estate of Eduard Khil is safe because was not trolling, he was trolololling.
A 2012 edition of the song: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PL8CD8PjVmA [youtube.com]
Australia doesnt have Free Speech provisions (Score:5, Informative)
The interesting thing that a lot of Australian Internet Users miss is that we (Australians) do not have a provision garanteeing or protecting free speech. All internet posts are pretty much covered under the libel and slander laws.
Re: (Score:2)
But if the servers are in a different country...
Re:Australia doesnt have Free Speech provisions (Score:5, Informative)
The location of the server doesn't matter when it comes to defamation law in Australia. The test case was Dow Jones & Co. Inc. v Gutnick.
Despite the article in question that allegedly defamed Australian Joseph Gutnick, was published by an American company and provided via American servers, the case of defamation was allowed to be tried in the Australian state of Victoria. The key point being that the defamation occurs at the place the communication is received (in this case, Australia), not where it is stored.
Re:Australia doesnt have Free Speech provisions (Score:5, Informative)
Farah (a footballer) has demanded new laws and the Prime Minister (a lawyer) and Attorney-General (also a lawyer) agreed. It took journalist John Birmingham to point out to them there are already laws against this: Section 474.17 of the Commonwealth criminal code creates an offense, punishable by imprisonment for three years, of using a carriage service, and yes the internet counts, in such a way that a reasonable person would consider it “menacing, harassing or offensive”.. People have gone to jail. What more do they want? http://m.smh.com.au/opinion/blogs/blunt-instrument/time-to-take-a-deep-breath-before-jumping-on-trolls-20120910-25o81.html [smh.com.au]
Free Speech is weak in Australia because there is no bill of rights and defamation laws are so tough you can't say anything bad about anyone which is a real problem if you are a journalist, let alone a twitterer.
https://www.efa.org.au/Issues/Censor/defamation.html [efa.org.au]
http://www.thenewsmanual.net/Resources/medialaw_in_australia_02.html [thenewsmanual.net]
http://www.law.uts.edu.au/comslaw/factsheets/defamation.html [uts.edu.au]
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
I would guess that they want more reason to track you and intercept and record all of your communications.
Comment removed (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
...which is a real problem if you are a journalist, let alone a twitterer.
The correct adjective is "twit". HTH.
Re:Australia doesnt have Free Speech provisions (Score:4, Funny)
...which is a real problem if you are a journalist, let alone a twitterer.
The correct adjective is "twit". HTH.
<pedantic>The correct noun is "noun".</pedantic>
Re: (Score:2)
You can say bad things all you want, you just can't be defamatory.
(For the life of me I cannot understand people who think the point of free speech is so you can hurl abuse at others.)
SLAPP suits (Score:5, Informative)
Trouble is if I think you've defamed me I can take you to court and it will cost you your house before a judge gets around to making that decision. Even if you win you will only get some of your costs back from me. It will also tie you up in court for years. They are called SLAPPs Strategic Lawsuits Against Public Participation and the best way to avoid them is not to say anything bad about anyone no matter what they have done:
http://www.uow.edu.au/~sharonb/SLAPPS.html [uow.edu.au]
http://www.edo.org.au/edonq/images/stories/factsheets/edonq_defamation_factsheet.pdf [edo.org.au] - HOW TO DUCK DEFAMATION AND SLIP 'SLAPP' SUITS
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Strategic_lawsuit_against_public_participation [wikipedia.org]
Re: (Score:2)
If you want to actually have free speech, you have to have the good with the bad.
Re: (Score:2)
So If I go to your neighbors and tell them you're a pedophile, you don't think there should be legal remedy?
Re: (Score:2)
And if you're being run out of town by angry folk with pitchforks, tar and feathers?
No liberty is absolute, not even speech. Some lies have disastrous, possibly even catastrophic consequences, and your scenario seems to presume you would have the liberty to even do what you claim. In all likelihood you would be investigated, your reputation destroyed even when they inevitably determine your innocence. Look at what happens when school teachers are accused of it. Even when cleared, they frequently lose their
Re: (Score:2)
Try saying the same in the USA where there is free speech and you will still get the same result
In the US speech is free the result is punishable by Defamation, it's just the laws are weaker ....
Parent talking out of their arse. (Score:4, Informative)
The interesting thing that a lot of Australian Internet Users miss is that we (Australians) do not have a provision garanteeing or protecting free speech. All internet posts are pretty much covered under the libel and slander laws.
The interesting part is that this is a myth.
Speech is one of the five fundamental freedoms [immi.gov.au] that every Australian is entitled to. The other four are Association, Assembly, Movement and Religion. Feel free to have a read.
What we don't have is a US style bill of rights, but just like the US's bill of rights Australia's five fundamental freedoms is only as good as the people who defend it (it's for this reason I believe Oz doesn't need a bill of rights).
Don't believe everything you read (Score:4, Insightful)
http://www.immi.gov.au/living-in-australia/choose-australia/about-australia/five-freedoms.htm [immi.gov.au]
" Australians are free, within the bounds of the law, to say or write
Sounds good, but you can do anything within the bounds of the law. Here's an equivalent sentence I just made up:-
" Australians are free, within the bounds of the law, to kill anyone they like, at any time
Their quote continues:
" Free speech comes from facts, not rumours "
Which I could legitimately re-write as so:-
" Australia has laws to prevent you from saying anything you cannot prove. You are not free to spread rumours which you suspect but cannot prove because you are missing information (more on that below)." And God helps anyone who gives you that missing information!
And more:
" and the intention must be constructive, not to do harm. "
LOL. You have the right to speak out, so long as you are constructive to your opponents and do not harm them.
Sounding less and less "free" to me...
It continues:
" There are laws to protect a person's good name and integrity against false information. There are laws against saying or writing things to incite hatred against others because of their culture, ethnicity or background. "
At what point do we draw the line and drop the word "Free" entirely I wonder?
And it ends with a doozy:
" Freedom of speech is not an excuse to harm others" (even if they deserve it!)
So basically, you can do anything that's as fucked up and stupid as you like, because nobody is allowed to tell anyone else about it, because it might harm you...
James Ashby who is now facing 10 years in prison: "Mr Slipper's lawyers suggested James Ashby could have breached sections of the Commonwealth Crimes Act, which prohibits public servants from publishing or communicating internal documents without authorisation." Free speech my arse
http://www.canberratimes.com.au/opinion/political-news/staffer-could-face-10-years-for-sharing-slippers-diary-20120706-21mna.html [canberratimes.com.au]
Another person talking out of their arse. (Score:4, Interesting)
Interesting that you have already tried and convicted Arby. Considering that article specifically states that the Federal Court has not decided to refer the matter to the AFP.
Also funny how you neglect to mention that the charge is not "saying what he liked" it's a violation of the Commonwealth Crimes Act. From the fine article you posted
Mr Slipper's lawyers suggested the former media adviser could have breached sections of the Commonwealth Crimes Act, which prohibits public servants from publishing or communicating internal documents without authorisation.
So he didn't exercise free speech, he used his position to leak sensitive documents to political rivals. He was given access to senstive information and abused that trust, name me a single nation that wouldn't consider that at least in part, criminal. But nice try to make it all about "TEH FREEDOMS(TM)".
Besides this, he hasn't even been charged and the maximum sentence is two years but we all know he wont even get a slap on the wrist if convicted (he's lost his public service job already though).
This does not inhibit your speech. You can still make false and misleading claims against other people. This clause merely says you can and will be held accountable for what you say.
Really, a "doozy".
So you honestly expect to be able to hurt other people and then hide behind "MAH FREEDOMZ(TM)" when they want to harm you back.
Get real sunshine. Free speech is not here to protect people who abuse it, this is the "fire in a crowded theatre" bit. You can shout "fire" in a crowded theatre but you are responsible for the panic it creates.
Finally, I just love how you left out this part.
Which is key to what is being discussed here.
Re:Another person talking out of their arse. {---- (Score:2)
>> We do not censor the media and may criticise the government without fear of arrest.
>Which is key to what is being discussed here.
Where are you getting your information from? Don't read it off another government web site. Ask a journalist instead. The government doesn't need to censor the media because it self-censors. Journalists are very restricted in what they can report: If they publish or posses a leaked government document they can be
Re: (Score:2)
This does not inhibit your speech. You can still make false and misleading claims against other people. This clause merely says you can and will be held accountable for what you say.
Like the GP post said, you can restate this argument to claim that you have "freedom of murder" which you clearly don't. Since you missed it the first time:
"This does not inhibit your killing. You can still kill other people. This clause merely says you can and will be held accountable for people you kill."
Now, are you going
Re:Don't believe everything you read (Score:4, Insightful)
" Australians are free, within the bounds of the law, to say or write ... ",
Sounds good, but you can do anything within the bounds of the law. Here's an equivalent sentence I just made up...
And what country on this planet has completely unrestricted "free speech"? None.
Let me guess: You're American?
Let me demonstrate my Australian free speech: Fuck off.
Re: (Score:3)
Australians are free, within the bounds of the law, to say or write what we think privately or publicly, about the government, or about any topic. We do not censor the media and may criticise the government without fear of arrest. Free speech comes from facts, not rumours, and the intention must be constructive, not to do harm. There are laws to protect a person's good name and integrity against false information. There are laws against saying or writing things to incite hatred against others because of their culture, ethnicity or background. Freedom of speech is not an excuse to harm others.
Some very intresting wording on that site... what we do have is constituationally protected speach with regard to politics as the High Court rulled that the constitutions' guarentee of democratic elections cover this.
tl;dr: political trolls will be fine or will have some very intresting court battles, its already illegal for most other forms of trolling
Re: (Score:2)
From your link:
Australians are free, within the bounds of the law, to say or write what we think privately or publicly, about the government, or about any topic. We do not censor the media and may criticise the government without fear of arrest. Free speech comes from facts, not rumours, and the intention must be constructive, not to do harm. There are laws to protect a person's good name and integrity against false information. There are laws against saying or writing things to incite hatred against others because of their culture, ethnicity or background. Freedom of speech is not an excuse to harm others.
Some very intresting wording on that site... what we do have is constituationally protected speach with regard to politics as the High Court rulled that the constitutions' guarentee of democratic elections cover this.
tl;dr: political trolls will be fine or will have some very intresting court battles, its already illegal for most other forms of trolling
What this simply says is that you will be accountable for what you say. It does not inhibit your rights to say it, rather it makes you aware that if you spread false and malicious information you cant hide behind free speech to avoid the consequences. This is the "fire in a crowded theatre" bit of free speech.
I.E., If I printed "HJED loved to beat his wife" on the front page of the SMH, you'd have a right to sue unless I had hard evidence that you enjoyed beating your wife.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
The interesting thing that a lot of Australian Internet Users miss is that we (Australians) do not have a provision garanteeing or protecting free speech. All internet posts are pretty much covered under the libel and slander laws.
Most countries do not protect libel and slander through free speech. In the US, or UK, or Australia I could not knowingly lie and defame someone without being liable for my actions. In fact, with freedom comes responsibility. You really are free to say whatever you want, but you must face the consequence of your actions if you do something that violates the rights of another. However, I do think that this law sounds a bit much. People have been trolling anonymously since the invention of the printing p
Re: (Score:2)
Internet only? (Score:5, Insightful)
Or will they also go after the shockjocks and the printed media?
Nicola Roxon can go bum herself with a dead fox (Score:2)
A Twitter user or troll found to ''menace, harass or cause offence'' using the social networking medium could be jailed for up to three years.
Yeah, because offence is never a subjective thing used for censorship - such as when cries of "blasphemy!" are hurled around at the first criticism of cherished beliefs.
It's bullshit. Harassment and threats are already taken care of under law, and should be taken seriously. I'm not a fan of twats on the Internet thinking they can issue threats with impunity, but also not seeing a need for yet another fucking law to remove freedom of speech in favour of people who take offence at near enough anything.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Good luck in finding me. I'm using a proxy and wearing a false beard!
Re: (Score:2)
Good luck in finding me. I'm using a proxy and wearing a false beard!
From where I'm standing that's obviously a merkin, not a beard.
Re: (Score:3)
Another censorship attempt (Score:2)
Just make sure people know whatever they say online can be used against them, possibly forever. The very, very least needed is pseudonymity as here on ./. But I guess the raise of the ACs observable recently shows that a lot of people do not even trust that. Chilling effects indeed.
Re: (Score:2)
posting this to undo moderation elsewhere in the thread
Re: (Score:2)
I've noticed that too, some really great and interesting comments posted by ACs. Sign in dudes, I don't think CowboyNeal is working for the man.
A law against trolling?? (Score:3, Insightful)
The last Attorney-General to try this... (Score:2)
Was the famous Michael Atkinson. There was a massive backlash and he was forced to repeal it a rush. I suspect the same might happen here once the public realise the implications of such a law.
http://www.adelaidenow.com.au/victory-atkinson-loosens-gag/story-e6frea6u-1225826104175 [adelaidenow.com.au]
Intimidation (Score:4, Informative)
The identity of a supposed troll has no legitimate use to the recipient of those identities if not to take legal action.
So if no legal action is taken, revealing identities has no justifiable purpose. Unless the "justification" is vigilante justice.
Re: (Score:2)
I like your black & white world; mine has too many shades of gray.
I agree most enthusiastically, FIFTY SHADES OF GREY was just too much.
The Humbrol paint company (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
in all practicality, the police can already ask twitter for the id's.
and in all practicality it should be the police who get the id's in such cases. not random people.
identity theft anyone? just look up some celebs twitter and ask for the id claiming they're trolling.
Don't allow extensions to business (Score:2, Interesting)
My main fear with this type of law is that it could be extended to protect businesses.
Just imagine how many people Microsoft would be able to sue, for causing offence?
Of course, the other concern is the exact interpretation of "causing offense" is not clear. This is bad for Free Speech, as other posters have mentioned.
Re: (Score:2)
So the fact that it's a unconscionable infringement on fundamental liberties doesn't worry you, but the possibility of the law being upheld consistently does?
Stopping Trolls? (Score:2)
Troll them back for larfs, maybe?
Or perhaps just understand that there's a difference between something published by a well-credentialed masthead with a long reputation for quality journalism and a throw-away 140-character blurb from @axethetax.
Come on, people. A bit of skill in discrimination when it comes to dots on a screen, please.
Australia is the ultimate Nanny State (Score:2)
Always trying to one-up Mother England. And no, this isn't trolling, or even an opinion, it's a simple statement of fact. Road traffic, privacy, speech, assembly, commerce, think-of-the-children censorship, gambling, personal and domestic defence: Australia leads the "1st world" in suppressing, oppressing and treating its citizens like children who are incapable of fending or thinking for themselves.
Welcome to the future, where all the corners are rounded and running with scissors is a felony.
Maybe change your laws ? (Score:2)
Since your first laws didn't immediately produce a well ordered, polite society of Internet users, maybe realize that you can't legislate taste or manners, and STFU?
This is so sad (Score:2)
Grown adults whining and moaning that they're not worshiped as gods. Well fuck them.
Easy Solution (Score:2)
Schoolyard Bullies? (Score:3)
I wouldn't mind betting that I'm like a lot of slashdotters - was physically bullied during high school by athletes such as Farah, to the point that the thought of going to school made me physically ill and I contemplated suicide to escape the (seemingly) never-ending physical and mental abuse.
I'm disgusted by Trolls too, don't get me wrong. But I want to know if Farah is "without sin" (clearly he's not, at least in Gillard's case) before I give him an ounce of sympathy for "being bullied."
Everyone knows ... (Score:3)
that Australians are Dumb, Drunk and Racist ... so this type of thing is not surprising really.
Silence Dogood rolling in her grave (Score:2)
@SilenceDogood Men are just as guilty as us RT @New-England-Courant Seeking comments on female vices
(insert young Ben Franklin troll face)
Did the minister cry? (Score:2)
Mommy... he's teasing me and he won't stop. Sheesh! All the world over, politicians are kindergarden babies. I'm in the USA and this story could have just as easily happened here, and I believe anywhere. Mommy, he's poking fun of our (Insert whatever here), Make him stop. MAKE HIM STOP. WAAAH, WAAAH.
Unfortunately, we can't just drag politicians out of the restaurant of public discourse and give them a bottle or something.
The land down under is sinking (Score:3)
I've noticed lately Australia seems to be reverting to its roots as a penal colony. So sad to see soo many countries go down the route of talking "freedom" while acting to limit speech they don't agree with.
The real measure of freedom is societies ability to tolerate the bullshit of others. A society which believes it is acceptable to act like children and yell mommy everytime someone calls you a fat smelly hobgoblin will get what it deserves.
Re:First porst (Score:5, Funny)
Institute compulsory spellchecking?
Re: (Score:2)
And in other news, semi-retarded politician proposes idiotic and unenforceable law to minor problem. And in other news, we talk with King Canute about his upcoming attempt to hold back the tide.
Re: (Score:2)
Actually Canute was making the point that he couldn't stop the tide, although the whole thing is probably apocryphal.
Re:First porst (Score:4, Funny)
On behalf of Australia I'd like to apologise to the rest of The Internet for our politicians' stupidity.
However, in our defence, we are once again only seeking to win the America's Cup equivalent for the 'world's most ridiculous internet-focused legislation'.
We will, of course, be forced to hand it back very shortly after acquiring it.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
The "attourney" is a female.
And females masturbate.
Some with hot grits down their pants.
Re: (Score:2)
Re:People get brave (Score:4, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3)
Re:People get brave (Score:5, Informative)
Trolling is saying something you don't really believe to get a response out of people, like using a plastic lure. It is inherently fraud. Saying things you do believe that you know people will respond to isn't trolling. We have a word for it here: flamebait. But you might also call it provocation. Governments hate provocation, unless they've manufactured it.
Re: (Score:3)
Bullying has become another bogeyman authorities will use to remove our rights. Yeah, it sucks to get called names, but it sucks worse to go to jail because of something you said. Clearly a government with the power to imprison people based on speech is a greater danger than a bully who talks big. The government itself is the bully you should be worried about, and they don't stop at name calling, they destroy your life.
Reevaluate your priorities, they're fucked to hell. I would rather live in a country
Re: (Score:2)
We're talking a few percent that want to ruin it for the rest of us.
What, you mean the government? Yeah, they typically try to do that. They'll imagine nonexistent/petty threats and say that we must resort to censorship or take away people's freedoms to stop it. This specific case just seems to be them saying, "Someone might hurt other people's feelings on the Internet! I deem their speech useless, so it must be stopped!"
Trolls are the ones trying to get a rise out of people for the sake of causing trouble.
So what if you're offended? What's going to happen? Whatever you let happen. It's not that big of a deal, in my opinion.
I don't think people should go arou
Re: (Score:2)
(see here for more details [wikipedia.org])
Re:What is a troll? (Score:4, Insightful)
However the constitution does specifiy the right to democratic elections and the High Court has rulled that this means political speach can't be censored.
The problem with that idea is that all speech is political. Every action, including claming to refuse to take a political stance, is political if it affects others, and refusing to take a political stance does that — it is an implicit vote for the maintenance of the status quo and a continuance of current downward trends.
This is one thing that America really got right. Not quite on the first go, but hey.
Re: (Score:3)
I'm glad the high court ruled "implied free speech" instead of no free speech at all!!! but that's a real stretch isn't it? That interpretation was very controversial. The Australian Civil Liberties Union: http://www.angelfire.com/folk/aclu/judges_have_failed.htm [angelfire.com]
The govenment tell us we need free speech for our democratic elections, then limit it
Re: (Score:3)
2010 'Won't somebody think about the children!'
2012 'Won't somebody think about the overpaid sportspeople!'
FTFY
Re: (Score:2)
Yawn.
Try leaving the house. Puts internet politics in perspective.