Australia Passes Law To Punish Social Media Companies For Violent Posts (theguardian.com) 259
An anonymous reader quotes a report from The New York Times: Australia passed sweeping legislation Thursday that threatens huge fines for social media companies and jail for their executives (Warning: source may be paywalled; alternative source) if they fail to rapidly remove "abhorrent violent material" from their platforms. The law -- strongly opposed by the tech industry -- puts Australia at the forefront of a global movement to hold companies like Facebook and YouTube accountable for the content they host. It comes less than a month after a gunman, believed to be an Australian white nationalist, distributed a hate-filled manifesto online before using Facebook to live-stream the massacre of 50 people at two mosques in Christchurch, New Zealand. Written quickly and without much input from technology companies or experts, the measure goes as far as any other democracy's attempt to punish multinational tech platforms for the behavior of their users. "The legislation criminalizes 'abhorrent violent material,' which it defines as videos that show terrorist attacks, murders, rape or kidnapping. Social media companies that fail to remove such content 'expeditiously' could face fines of up to 10 percent of their annual profit, and employees could be sentenced to up to three years in prison," the report adds. "Companies must also inform the police when illegal material is found."
"This law, which was conceived and passed in five days without any meaningful consultation, does nothing to address hate speech, which was the fundamental motivation for the tragic Christchurch terrorist attacks," said Sunita Bose, the managing director of the Digital Industry Group, an advocacy group representing Facebook, Google and other companies. "With the vast volumes of content uploaded to the internet every second, this is a highly complex problem that requires discussion with the technology industry, legal experts, the media and civil society to get the solution right -- that didn't happen this week."
"This law, which was conceived and passed in five days without any meaningful consultation, does nothing to address hate speech, which was the fundamental motivation for the tragic Christchurch terrorist attacks," said Sunita Bose, the managing director of the Digital Industry Group, an advocacy group representing Facebook, Google and other companies. "With the vast volumes of content uploaded to the internet every second, this is a highly complex problem that requires discussion with the technology industry, legal experts, the media and civil society to get the solution right -- that didn't happen this week."
Prove that youtube videos cause violence? (Score:5, Insightful)
Or prove that heavy metal music, or video games cause violence.
Does the Koran cause violence?
Re: (Score:3)
Evil people will do evil things on their own, but it takes religion to make a good man do evil things.
Re:Prove that youtube videos cause violence? (Score:5, Interesting)
I look at religion not as cosmic truth, but as early human attempts to keep people from evil. It's certainly as susceptible to corruption as much as any institution, and definitely a tool for controlling a population, but humans are downright savage. If we appear nice and moral today, it's thanks to progress and an abundance of resources. Remove that and we'd be at each other's throats in short order.
Re: (Score:3)
So it seems all it takes is an authority that lets you say "he made me do it".
Ok, so it takes religion to feel good about it...
Re: (Score:2)
https://www.theatlantic.com/he... [theatlantic.com]
https://www.independent.co.uk/... [independent.co.uk]
Re:Prove that youtube videos cause violence? (Score:5, Insightful)
This is utter flapping bullshit. Religion is not the problem, never has been.
Evil people are evil, they just USE religion as an excuse to be or act out what they ALREADY ARE! You don't need religion to justify it either, secular people have no problem murdering, hurting, trash talking, abusing, and marginalizing other people just the same as people with a religion.
At the very end there is only 1 religion. the religion of you trying to make people live the way you want them to... its called society... that IS the religion and the only one that exists. You can center it around 1 god, multiple gods, no gods, or humans. It is all the same... people coming up with some excuse, scheme, idea, policy, law, regulation, or rule people have to follow to be accepted into that society or risk getting excluded. Every religion and non-religious group has jails and a desire to put anyone they decide they do not like in jails so they are out of society.
Saying religion is the root of all evil when it is actually just "humans" being evil just shows that you have a nasty bias that creates a serious deficit of intellectual honesty in your logic!
Re: (Score:2)
The root cause is that there are just too many humans on the planet that are satisfied letting someone else tell them what to believe. As long as our species is this way, there will always be a select few who take advantage of it.
Re:Prove that youtube videos cause violence? (Score:5, Insightful)
Saying religion is the root of all evil when it is actually just "humans" being evil just shows that you have a nasty bias that creates a serious deficit of intellectual honesty in your logic!
Yeah but it's a lot easier when you can say 'This is gods plan' or 'god told me to do it' or 'its in the fucking bible' and move responsibility rather than take it yourself. Being a dick to others it literally codified in the books. Yes, people are dicks, but religious people are generally bigger ones.
Re:Prove that youtube videos cause violence? (Score:5, Insightful)
Saying religion is the root of all evil when it is actually just "humans" being evil just shows that you have a nasty bias that creates a serious deficit of intellectual honesty in your logic!
It's religion that has a serious deficit of intellectual honesty, and logic... and those deficits are inherent. Religion turns well-meaning people into evil people by giving them a sense of justness which they do not deserve. It teaches people to make decisions on specious bases, and to feel smug about them, which is why it's inherently harmful.
Re: (Score:2)
Saying religion is the root of all evil when it is actually just "humans" being evil just shows that you have a nasty bias that creates a serious deficit of intellectual honesty in your logic!
It's religion that has a serious deficit of intellectual honesty, and logic... and those deficits are inherent. Religion turns well-meaning people into evil people by giving them a sense of justness which they do not deserve. It teaches people to make decisions on specious bases, and to feel smug about them, which is why it's inherently harmful.
Are we still talking about Bible or is this now about Social Justice issues. I seriously cannot tell.
Re: (Score:2)
Replace Religion with Progressivism. No noticeable difference in truthiness.
Re:Prove that youtube videos cause violence? (Score:4, Insightful)
This is utter flapping bullshit. Religion is not the problem, never has been.
No *that* is bullshit. Religion while not the only problem most definitely is a big problem. People aren't born evil. They don't pass through the vagina with a leather jacket, knuckleduster in hand and swastika tattoos and crosses. Being evil is something that is learned.
Religion is an appeal of authority from an unknown force. That authority is used to radicalise and mold people's beliefs. That very authority is incompatible with the idea that any other authority can exist which is why fundamentally all religions claim they are the one true religion and that false worshipers are enemies.
In many cases it is the existence of religion itself which has made people evil. It is the authority of religion that has caused evil people to spread evil unto others. And above all, a great many evil acts have been done *in the name of* religion, not "excused by", "not in defense of" but actively "in the name of" religion.
Religion isn't the root of all evils. It is however a hell of a big contributor as both the source and the spread of evil.
By the way you need to die infidel. My holy book has said so and my holy man decreed it so, and he has the backing of god so therefore he can't be evil. Now come heather so I can do the will of god and rid the world of your evil.
Re: (Score:2)
Your example is interesting since the Koran defines Christians and Jews as NOT infidels.
Crazy finds an excuse. If not the Koran, it'll be the White Album or the Slender Man. Kinison was right, Manson would have gotten the same thing from the Monkees. Stalin's deal was eliminating religion (and more or less turning the state into a religion).
Hitler, like many politicians today, paid lip service to religion when it suited his goals but showed no signs of actual belief.
TL;DR; I believe you have cause and effec
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
The "official religion" of Communism is atheism. How many millions did they kill?
Re:Prove that youtube videos cause violence? (Score:5, Insightful)
The official religion of Communism, which has pretty much all the qualities of a religion, is Communism itself.
This is pretty evident by the fact that virtually all of the great communist leaders have had themselves elevated to a godlike status as the fathers of the nation. They created huge personality cults around themselves, which celebrated them in various ways not unlike some kind of religious guru figure.
This is probably also the main reason why communist leaders persecuted other religion, because they wanted citizens to have no other gods besides of themselves.
Re: (Score:2)
Logically, you cannot prove a negative (other than disproving every other possible case), meaning you can't prove that there is no god. So the only logically supportable belief is agnosticism - you are uncertain if a god does or does not exist. To take that extra step to atheism - being convinced that there is no god - requires a leap of faith.
Your TV analogy doesn't work because it's trivial to observe that the TV is off
Re: (Score:2)
This is a very good point about religion, and specifically monotheism. It was the belief in a single non-human (or "sky" as the uninformed say) god that dismantled the general principle that leaders of cities/kingdoms/territories themselves were gods. In this manner, civilization was able to derive principles from concepts higher than human power.
In this day and age, it is of the utmost importance for the communist types not only to profess atheism, but also to ridicule theist religion. Faith in a deity rat
Re: (Score:2)
Not as much as Capitalism that's for sure.
Communism is a reaction to the horrors of being a poor worker under the Capitalist system. It wouldn't exist if Capitalism is all rainbows and ponies.
Re: (Score:2)
but it takes religion to make a good man do evil things
Then add Christians to the list of "good men doing evil":
and more.
I was born and raised Christian. Long ago, I disavowed Christianity out of shame for the evil done by Christians.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
Or prove that heavy metal music, or video games cause violence.
Does the Koran cause violence?
I'd say there's a lot more evidence for your last one there ...
Re:Prove that youtube videos cause violence? (Score:5, Interesting)
These are the post 9/11 reactionary measures that governments are pushing all around the world after being empowered by such tragedies. A most disgusting method if you ask me.
And in the face of such events, where fear is still at its peak, it is also the best situation for political parties and or governments to propose and push through the erosion of our liberties. People are likely to cheer for them and shut up critical discourse with platitudes.
Re: (Score:2)
First: I don't support this law at all.
That said, it is actually well understood that violent imagery does cause violence in some people, i.e. those with under-developed mental tools to process and understand such things, e.g. children. There is a scientific, well researched reason for having an 18 certificate on some movies, for example.
Facebook might be been in a better position if it had made the minimum age 18, but instead it made it 13 so now has to make sure everything on there is suitable for a 13 ye
Re: (Score:3)
The law is inherently broken. Just because you have video of an incident does not mean the incident occurred. Take a typical action move, chock a block full of abhorrent content, which you can be fined for, until you can prove, legally prove it is fake. Flip side for real abhorrent content, it is by law, not real until it is proven to be real in a court of law.
Quite simply it is up to the state to prove it is real prior to demanding a social media site take it down. How do you separate real from fake but i
Re: (Score:2)
It is dumb, although not because of the real/fake issue.
What is the goal here? Surely it's to prevent people becoming either radicalized or traumatized. In either case, the danger is rarely from people posting this kind of extreme content, it's from less extreme stuff that leads them to it. So they aren't even targeting the right thing.
Not that is has much hope of working anyway. In the wake of the Christchurch far-right terror attack Facebook removed over a million copies of the terrorist's video. The prob
Re: (Score:3)
So now videos of 9/11 are illegal in Australia?
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
A justified reaction against Islamic aggression.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
A justified reaction against Islamic aggression.
No it wasn't. Read about that in this book. [amazon.com] "Extraordinary Popular Delusions and the Madness of Crowds " Charles MacKay.
I'm the first one to bash Islam for being a backwards stiffing misogynist religion, but the Crusades were not their fault. It was profiteering evil Christian clergy.
Religion is a cancer in this World and the sooner we ditch it the better for the human race.
Re: Prove that youtube videos cause violence? (Score:5, Informative)
Oh yeah!
So that's why the 4th crusade conquered Constantinople...to punish those pesky muslims...oh wait!
Do you know that the Catholics apologised for this on numerous occasions?
Do you know that this vile act is considered the chief reason for the fall of the whole Empire to the Ottomans? Which removed my country from the map for 482 years!!
If only emperor Kaloyan had destroyed the fucking crusaders BEFORE they destroyed the riches city in the world....raping nuns on the altars....but alas he did not see the bigger danger and how could he, it took many years before it became apparent.
Not like khan Tervel who in the 7th century helped Constantinople against the islamic hordes who had a plan to close on Europe from Spain and Byzantium. They succeeded in the west but not in the east.
So, thank you crusaders for saying thank you to Byzantium and Bulgaria for saving all your Christian asses by pillaging, raping, burning and killing of your brothers and sisters by faith. The historians traveling with the crusaders admit that Orthodox Christians were treated worse than the Saracens.
BTW, I'm not excusing the Ottomans for any of their inhuman atrocities committed against us (ask the Armenians too).
Google Januarius McGahan and read....
BTW the NZ motherfucker had inscriptions in Cyrillic on the gun and cartridges mentioning the struggle of all if us East Europeans against the turks. Fuck him! Erdogan is a piece of shit but I refuse to hate an entire nation or religion because of some wrongdoing in the past. But I won't forget it either...
Read some history, man!
Re: Prove that youtube videos cause violence? (Score:5, Insightful)
I refuse to hate an entire nation or religion because of some wrongdoing in the past. But I won't forget it either...
It's ridiculous not to abhor all religion based on what it's done in the past, given that it's not materially different today and can do all the same stuff again.
Religion teaches some people to feel superior to other people because they believe something stupid. As such, it is all harmful.
Religions which promote theocracy are especially bad, which is why Islam is particularly bad. It explicitly teaches that any laws not of god are inferior to those which are of god, and sets itself up as the voice of god. Theocracy always leads to abuse. ALWAYS.
Any religion can used for the basis of theocracy, so that's another bad thing about all religions. But religions which are deliberately theocratic are especially awful.
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
> Religion teaches some people to feel superior to other people because they believe something stupid. As such, it is all harmful.
Throw the baby out with the bath water much???
Blaming a _philosophy_ when people's actions are the problem is intellectually dishonest.
The intent of Judaic Law, such as the 10 commandments, was to codify and communicate good morality -- don't murder, don't steal, don't lie, don't cover, etc.
The intent of Christianity was to end the stupidity of Judaism killing innocent animals
Re: (Score:2)
Any religion can used for the basis of theocracy, so that's another bad thing about all religions. But religions which are deliberately theocratic are especially awful.
Atalin, Mao, and the N. Korean Kims have demonstrated that the state will serve as well if you need something to turn into a theocracy.
Re: (Score:2)
>> Religion teaches some people to feel superior to other people because they believe something stupid.
My best guess is that either you do not understand, and never bothered to try to understand, religion, and are pretending to be able to read the minds of religious people.
Or, you have experienced religion and felt superior at one point, then switched to the more contemporary version of feeling superior, which is to proclaim "religion is bad" and "religious people are stupid."
Or, you have an inferiori
Re: (Score:2)
A no-true-Christian argument? Really?
Re: (Score:3)
And there always a fight at a heavy metal concert but never at Barry Manillow concert - just say'in.
That's because there's no testosterone at a Barry Manilow concert.
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Its a fact that the religion causes violence.
FTFY
Re: Prove that youtube videos cause violence? (Score:4, Insightful)
I studied Islam for over 20 years and I lived in the Middle East for four of them. It's a fact that the Quoran mandates violence against non-muslims.
Re: Prove that youtube videos cause violence? (Score:4, Informative)
I studied Islam for over 20 years and I lived in the Middle East for four of them. It's a fact that the Quoran mandates violence against non-muslims.
You do not need to have lived in the Middle East for that. Just google the Quran: I mean, it's not like the whole thing isn't on the internet in various translations. Then, google "violent bits of the Quran" (or similar terms) to get pointers to which parts of it contain such material. Then read that. What you will find there really leaves nothing to the imagination. In a number of places violence against non-believers is explicitly mandated, with no wiggle room.
If this were any other text except the holy book of Muslims, it would be banned.
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
Misrepresent much???
My reading of the Quran tells me that violence is condoned in the event of an attack by an oppressive host which does not tolerate Islamic worship, and as retaliation for other acts of violence.
In the absence of such provocations, peace and amity are enjoined.
One could say that this policy matches that followed by the nation of Israel.
Either you are misrepresenting or you have not studied the matter fully.
Re: Prove that youtube videos cause violence? (Score:5, Insightful)
And it's a fact that the bible mandates violence against people who take the lord's name in vain. Your point?
Re: (Score:2, Troll)
Do christians regularly commit violence against non-believers and people who commit "sins"? Not really. Fringe groups like the Westboro Baptist Church are almost universally hated by other christians. Meanwhile, violence in the name of islam happens so often that it has become background noise and is rarely reported by the news media.
Re: Prove that youtube videos cause violence? (Score:2)
There are over a billion Muslims. Mostly in India and Indonesia. If you don't think that the ones committing all the violence are a fringe group, then you are vastly underestimating the damage a billion people could do, if they really wanted to.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
There are over a billion Muslims. Mostly in India and Indonesia. If you don't think that the ones committing all the violence are a fringe group, then you are vastly underestimating the damage a billion people could do, if they really wanted to.
Based on polls, it isn't fringe group of muslims who support violence. By definition, fringe group would constitute a fraction of a percentage of the people. Here's just a sampling of the opinion polls:
Pew Global: 68% of Palestinian Muslims say suicide attacks against civilians in defense of Islam are justified.
43% of Nigerian Muslims say suicide attacks against civilians in defense of Islam are justified.
38% of Lebanese Muslims say suicide attacks against civilians in defense of Islam are justified.
15% o
Re: (Score:2)
You only said "bible" and not a specific religion, like Christianity or Judaism. However since you said "bible" I presume you mean the bible that most people think of, which is the Christian bible that also contains the New Testament. Christians believe that Christ (aka the New Testament) fulfills and thus overrides the Old Testament. That's why Christians are... Christians and not Jews. It is possible that a devote follower of Judaism might take the violent histories of the Old Testament at face value,
Re: (Score:2)
Mathew 12 :31-32 [biblegateway.com]
Christians should read their holy book more carefully.
Re: Prove that youtube videos cause violence? (Score:5, Informative)
The New Testament that's the basis of Christianity overturns all those Old Testament rules [biblegateway.com] and replaces them with a new one - "love one another." [biblegateway.com] And no this doesn't mean just other Christians; it means everyone [biblegateway.com]
(This is why I facepalm at Christians who try to put the Ten Commandments up on a pedestal, because clearly they haven't read the New Testament enough.)
Re: (Score:2)
When was the last time you saw that happen?
Re: (Score:3)
I studied Islam for over 20 years and I lived in the Middle East for four of them. It's a fact that the Quoran mandates violence against non-muslims.
I thought slashdot was completely beyond up-modding appeals to authority, not less the authority of an anonymous coward. I have been on Slashdot for over 20 years and it's a fact all people who modded that post insightful deserve to have their mod points taken away from them.
Re:Prove that youtube videos cause violence? (Score:4, Informative)
Christianity and all other modern religions underwent reformations in the past 15 centuries. Islam has not. It's just as backwards as it was centuries ago.
Re: (Score:2)
Christianity never had a reformation.
The Reformers [wikipedia.org] would like to have a word with you.
I'm sure this will have no unintended consequences (Score:4, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3)
Zukerberg is nervously asking his lawyers if there is an extradition treaty between Australia and the US.
Re: I'm sure this will have no unintended conseque (Score:4, Informative)
There is but it doesn't matter; the act has to be a crime in both nations for it to qualify for extradition.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Correct reaction by Twitter.
You force me to comply with your law, I will comply with your law. And if I don't like that law, I will comply in the way that fucks you the most.
Re: (Score:2)
According to the French government (quoted in the link) Twitter is not complying with the law at all, they are just doing it to try to force the government to back down.
It is of course up to Twitter if they want to try that, but I doubt it's going to work. Give it a few months and they will have set up an office to handle this stuff, since political tweets are a significant source of revenue.
Re: (Score:2)
According to the French government (quoted in the link) Twitter is not complying with the law at all, they are just doing it to try to force the government to back down.
And according to Twitter, they are complying with the law. Since neither Twitter nor the French government has any credibility with thinking people since they are both hypocritical AF, it's difficult to imagine what is gained by playing "he said, she said".
Re: (Score:2)
If they are required to censor everything that might interfere with an election, that's what they do.
Re: (Score:2)
They aren't. Not sure where you got that from... The law says that political ads must be properly attributed.
The ads in question are just encouraging people to vote and don't count under the wording of the law. They are not partisan or attempting to influence the vote in any way, merely encouraging participation.
Twitter just doesn't want the hassle of verifying the identities of people buying political ads, the lazy buggers.
Re:I'm sure this will have no unintended consequen (Score:4, Interesting)
There will be only intended consequences. These lawmakers might not know a volt from a vault or a wire from a fire but they do have people who can explain to them that this is totally unworkable in practice. But it will create opportunities for selective enforcement, which governments absolutely adore.
You can tell there are too many laws when the police have discretion as to who to cite, and who not to. Every major society has too many laws for actual justice to survive. If prosecution is not required for every offense, it means that there's too many offenses.
Re: (Score:2)
I assume it's because then juries would often go, "These laws are fucking stupid" or "he's not guilty of most of this." and acquit him, can't have that now.
Re: (Score:2)
I'm sure that this will work out perfectly fine and absolutely no unintended consequences will arise [bbc.com] as a result.
Yep ...
But it argued that the public information message, simply asking people to register to vote, should not count as a "political campaign".
What the "good" people want is never politics, of course. It's just plain common sense, ya know.
Punchable face (Score:5, Interesting)
So is it enough if you comment that someone has a “punchable face”? ;)
Re: (Score:2)
If the target is a politician, sure.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
How would the videos of military bomb attacks be taken? There were a lot of those passed around during the Iraq war, filmed from the perspective of the bomber.
Wow... (Score:4, Interesting)
Almost everything native to Australia is poisonous and deadly, and they have nonsense like this now?
I think the country itself, the very land, is trying to get rid of all the humans living there....
Re:Wow... (Score:5, Funny)
Almost everything native to Australia is poisonous and deadly, and they have nonsense like this now?
Videos of the outdoors in Australia are banned from now on.
Mass censorship incoming (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Mass censorship incoming (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
But the internet is much, much more than these few sites and just like you can still download any show, movie or program you want even today, you will always be able to do what you want to do online.
But it will be a lot harder to find other people that have what you want. If it were easy, government could simply use the same path to find and block your activity.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
That was one of the best features of windowsphone, it had this people page that all of your contact you had social media links to would also display. Facebook, twitter, etc all on one page, it was really nice.
Re: (Score:2)
you will always be able to do what you want to do online. You will just have to be less lazy about it.
What if I want to be lazy? CHECKMATE.
Governments have no business making people who provide a forum police that forum, unless they explicitly endorse the views promoted in that forum. This is nothing less than an attack on free speech, by attempting to shut down the places where it occurs.
Re: (Score:2)
I agree, change will come (Score:2)
We are living in the golden age of the open internet. I doubt that the open internet will cease to exist. However, I expect a new sanitized internet to be a form of a walled garden that keeps users from the open internet.
China's model probably will not be the exact model as the Chinese model requires a very large staff of monitors. However, a similar model using AI to identify troublesome text and images can be done.
As in China, there will always be workarounds that allow access to the open internet; howev
Re: (Score:2)
Kneejerk Move (Score:2, Insightful)
Sorry Australia, but you got this one wrong. Your well intentioned emotional response to a tragic event is gonna bite you in the ass.
Just snap your fingers! (Score:2, Funny)
All all is fixed and everything is rainbows and lollipops without any unintended consequences and it's hate speech for everyone else but OK speech for us. Yay, we're in la la land now!
So will WW2 movies be banned? (Score:2, Informative)
I remember seeing movies of gross and violent murder, mass shootings, corpses piled up.
Something tells me these will not be banned.
This will just cause more conspiracy nuts . . . (Score:2, Interesting)
Every time some tragedy happens like this, you get various conspiracy nuts out and about claiming it was some sort of false-flag. Now, when you have extensive video, like this case, it is easy to debunk. Due to the video & the manifesto the shooter produced, we clearly see who committed this crime, and his motivations behind it. If you want to actually prevent these sorts of attacks in the future, you need to understand why people do these things, and actually address the issues they bring up, rather t
Oz... (Score:2)
Austrailia is so fucked. I feel sorry for the citizens..
If the only tool you have is jailing people... (Score:3)
I was worried about all the fake news, hate speech, and abhorrent violent material that was appearing on the internet, but now they've passed a law - that should solve all problems.
Violence (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Outlawing kinds of speech now? (Score:4, Informative)
So, now we are outlawing specific kinds of speech? Danger is close.
Tread lightly. It's a really slippery slope when you start down this path and something I suggest we weigh carefully before reacting emotionally.
Where I'm all for avoiding things like yelling "fire in a theater" or "inflaming an actual riot" it's going to put us way out on the slippery slope to do this. I wonder if the risks are worth the sacrifice of freedom, if we can craft a narrow enough rule to fix the actual problem without sliding into full censorship... I'm not sure we can.
So, what rule are you suggesting here? Specifically what and what isn't allowed? What's the problem we are trying to fix?
Re: (Score:2)
So, now we are outlawing specific kinds of speech? Danger is close.
No. It is already here wreaking havoc.
Where I'm all for avoiding things like yelling "fire in a theater" or "inflaming an actual riot"
I'd like to address this, as it is often used as an example of a restriction on freedom of speech. It is not.
"Freedom of speech" is not synonymous with "freedom from judgement of the consequences of your speech". "Fire in a theater" is ok. . . if the theater is nearly empty, or everyone ignores me. But, if there are people trampled in a mad rush for the door, then that happened as a consequence of my actions, just as sure as if I had stood at the front and started
Re: (Score:2)
But, if there are people trampled in a mad rush for the door, then that happened as a consequence of my actions, just as sure as if I had stood at the front and started shooting at the crowd.
Nonsense. If you're shooting at the crowd then people are dying because you shot them. That's direct culpability. If people get trampled in a mad rush for the door, you neither trampled them yourself nor forced anyone else to do so. The people who did the trampling are responsible for those deaths. If they had simply exited the theater in a calm and civilized manner—which is the correct response whether or not the fire is real—then no one would have gotten hurt. By lying about the existence of a
Re: (Score:2)
Interesting thing that, "fire in a theatre" quote. According to Wikipedia [wikipedia.org] it is a paraphrasing of the opinion of a Justice in the U.S. Supreme Court and was originally, "The most stringent protection of free speech would not protect a man falsely shouting fire in a theatre and causing a panic."
The interesting part, to me at least, is that we essentially have the same problem. Someone is knowingly giving false information which could result in someone else taking action based on it. In this case the internet
Illegal material? (Score:3)
What is the connection with illegal material? Is it illegal to video an illegal act being performed?
Facebook won't pay (Score:2)
Because they never pay.
Welcome to ... (Score:2)
*Not sure if there is an acceptable native Australian character, as everything down under eventually tries to kill you.
Re: (Score:2)
What next? (Car analogy) (Score:2)
Summary Based on Reading the Text (Score:2)
So basically if there is an audio and/or video showing terrorism, murder, attempted murder, rape, torture, or kidnap and it isn't for political, legal, research (scientific, academic, historic, medical), artistic use or for the news accessible to Australians then the company/individual hosting the file, no matter where in the world they are, has to inform the authorities and remove access to Australians.
The content has to be produced by someone involved with the act in order for it to be removed. 434.31 (1
Re: (Score:3)
Nah. Redirect those connections to your new VPN service.
Gee, have some entrepreneurial spirit!
Re: (Score:2)
News Headline (not available in Austrailia): "Austraila returns to prison colony status, cut off from the rest of the world
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
You don't seem to realize that the right wing is in control of the Australian Parliament, but then again you don't seem to notice that the push to regulate social media is bipartisan.
You don't realize that this is what OUR LEFT (not yours, ours) wants. Censor and squelch everything that doesn't fit the narrative.
Honestly our right would love censorship too, but traditionally have been averse at doing so. Except for titties. Can't show titties.
Comment removed (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
Australia is run by a Murdoch-backed right wing government. But don't let that stop you pretending it's the "left" because they want to take... uh your right to die outside a hospital you can't afford to use away.
Australias Right Wing just did this.
But this is what our Left Wing wants. Get it? UNderstand my post now?