Beta
×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

New Cyberbullying Evidence Rules May Go Too Far

samzenpus posted more than 2 years ago | from the sticks-and-stones dept.

Censorship 125

An anonymous reader writes "The Malaysian Government has recently passed an amendment to their Evidence Act that has been designed to hold cyber bullies accountable for their malicious tirades on blogs or Facebook Walls. Unfortunately, the amendment has been worded such that 'If your name, photograph or pseudonym appears on any publication depicting yourself as the author, you are deemed to have published the content' and 'If a posting comes from your Internet or phone account, you are deemed to be the publisher unless the contrary is proved.' What these raft of amendments have done is shifted the burden of proof to the accused. One is considered guilty until proven innocent. Even the simple act of posting an offending message on a friend's Facebook Wall could get that friend, and not the original poster, into trouble with this law. Although the amendments were initiated by good intentions, a conspiracist can see how easily this law can be misused to curb dissent in Malaysia."

cancel ×

125 comments

Sorry! There are no comments related to the filter you selected.

guilty until proven innocent (0, Flamebait)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40129957)

"One is considered guilty until proven innocent.", Welcome to America.

Oh wait, Malaysia, my bad.

In Malaysia, the authority is the final judge (1)

Taco Cowboy (5327) | more than 2 years ago | (#40131583)

True story, it happened in Malaysia:

A Mongolia female was blown to smithereens with C4

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Murder_of_Shaariibuugiin_Altantuyaa [wikipedia.org]

The Prime Minister of Malaysia, Najib Razak, is linked to the murder

That murder occurred in 2006

6 years have passed. Najib Razak is still not charged with the murder

In other words, in Malaysia, whether or not you are charged for a crime has nothing to do with whether or not you have committed that criminal act

If the authority says that you are guilty, even if you are truly innocent, you are still guilty.

That's the Malaysian way of "justice"

Just in case you wonder, in this respect, Malaysia is actually worse than China

Re:In Malaysia, the authority is the final judge (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40131715)

Or in other words: Don't be a bully; the government hates the competition.

Rights? Right. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40129981)

Isn't Malaysia the country where you can be arrested for insulting the king? Who cares about whether this law "goes too far"?

Re:Rights? Right. (5, Funny)

History's Coming To (1059484) | more than 2 years ago | (#40129993)

Indeed, so the solution is to post something defamatory about the king using a picture and the name of one of the politicians or lawlords who passed this bill, then they'll be able to see the obvious flaw in their plan.

Re:Rights? Right. (4, Insightful)

shentino (1139071) | more than 2 years ago | (#40130275)

That's not a bug, it's a feature.

Replace "you" with "politician with an axe to grind" and "lawlord" with "dissident"

Re:Rights? Right. (0)

hairyfeet (841228) | more than 2 years ago | (#40130861)

Frankly the whole "cyber bullying" thing is bullshit, there has been trolls and douchebags on the net as long as there HAS been a net, see Gabe's theory [penny-arcade.com] which has been proven true time and time again. IRL bullying is violence and real threats of violence, whereas trolls are like monkeys at the zoo flinging poo, don't like it? don't stand next to the monkey cage. Nearly every site has ToS that lets the mods banhammer the real shitheads and most places have mods that have a VERY limited tolerance for douchebaggery.

The problem with cyber bullying bullshit is frankly you never know who is gonna be offended over what, hell look at the "PC Police" that get offended if you don't follow the little PC rules like hyphen-American and other horseshit. Look at this very site and how some get royally butthurt if you dare say anything negative about their software/religion of choice, be it FOSS or should I say GPL-FOSS or the Cult Of iSteve. Funny you don't see that near as much from the Softies, but then again how could you be offended when the CEO is a giant sweating howler monkey whose strategy is "I heart Apple lots!" and who honestly thought the public would like to squirt a shit brown brick sized media player? Of course the one group that is impossible to offend is the BSD guys, those poor lonely sods are just so damned happy that anybody remembered they existed they take everything as a compliment.

in the end I think free speech is worth a hell of a lot more than making sure every little Mary Milktoast out there don't get their little feelings hurt. The Internet is the biggest force of change we have ever seen in the history of mass communication, governments have literally fallen thanks to its ability to organize and spread speech, I just think we shouldn't risk destroying such a powerful engine of speech just to keep some people from getting butthurt.

Re:Rights? Right. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40131357)

Spoken like someone who's obviously never been the target of real bullying. We're not talking about random people on the internet that insult you because of something you wrote, we're talking about people you KNOW in real life that smear every single one of your online precenses with hate messages, racial slander, sexual references and so on. The mere fact that you referenced that Penny-Arcade strip shows that you obviously don't undestand the difference between "random blathering idiot" and "full-fledge asshole who's sole purpose in life you to make your life a living hell".

Now kindly shut the fuck up and stop being so god damn condescending.

Re:Rights? Right. (0)

lexsird (1208192) | more than 2 years ago | (#40131639)

Speaking of a butthurt Mary Milktoast...

Re:Rights? Right. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40131361)

Says, Hairy feet if that is in fact your real name.

Cyberbullying is a real problem and unlike real world bullying you can't just move out of state to escape it. The records are there essentially permanently and can be used by potential girlfriends, employers and associates to decide if they want to have anything to do with you.

This whole blame the victim bullshit really needs to stop, just because you're lacking in feelings doesn't mean that others are similarly maladjusted. It also doesn't make that a desirable trait.

Re:Rights? Right. (0, Troll)

lexsird (1208192) | more than 2 years ago | (#40131647)

So, whiny people who have no social skills and get butthurt > freedom of speech on the Internet?

Jesus, seriously?

Re:Rights? Right. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40130347)

Problem is the politicians and people with $$$$ are above the law.

Re:Rights? Right. (1)

History's Coming To (1059484) | more than 2 years ago | (#40130365)

Not at all, we just had a politician who committed what might, to the untrained eye, look like fraud, but she's been held to account and it turns out it wasn't fraud at all, it was an "oversight". Not above the law at all, just remarkably bouyant is all.

Re:Rights? Right. (2)

Taco Cowboy (5327) | more than 2 years ago | (#40131625)

Not at all, we just had a politician who committed what might, to the untrained eye, look like fraud, but she's been held to account and it turns out it wasn't fraud at all, it was an "oversight"

In Malaysia, corruption is so rampant that they actually spent 250 Million local currency (about 100 Million USD) to raise 3,000 cows

When that matter was exposed, that female politician, the one who got the generous 250 Million gift, insisted that she's not guilty of anything

And in deed, she was NOT guilty of anything - for in Malaysia, as long as you are a part of the ruling elite, you can corrupt away and the authority will use the word "oversight" to explain away how the money was lost

After that, case closed !

Re:Rights? Right. (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40131863)

The following does not excuse corruption in Malaysia.

In the US, the political elite can start wars with foreign nations to ensure the continued production of valuable mineral resources. The political elite uses disinformation to get the approval of the public and, thereby, cajole any legislators not on board with the program.

Re:Rights? Right. (1)

michelcolman (1208008) | more than 2 years ago | (#40130439)

What if you use the picture and name of the king himself? Will he get arrested for insulting himself?

Re:Rights? Right. (3, Funny)

Opportunist (166417) | more than 2 years ago | (#40130567)

Is that the online version of "stop hitting yourself"?

Re:Rights? Right. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40131305)

They make it to easy to mess up your enemies, to funny to even comment what mental retards the leaders of that country are. And that fast ass king of theirs. Poor little girly king he can't handle any criticism of his impotent mind.

Re:Rights? Right. (0)

tomhath (637240) | more than 2 years ago | (#40130029)

In the US students are being told that they can be arrested for criticizing Obama [nypost.com] . So yea, who cares.

Re:Rights? Right. (3, Insightful)

Swave An deBwoner (907414) | more than 2 years ago | (#40130119)

Yeah, there's one in every crowd. This was a report about one teacher yelling at one student. The /. article however is about a government action.

SPENCER, NC â" A North Carolina high school teacher was captured on video shouting at a student who questioned President Obama and suggesting he could be arrested for criticizing a sitting president.

Re:Rights? Right. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40130219)

Actually the teacher said the President, and cited believed examples about incidents during the Bush presidency.

But I think it was just a teacher who couldn't articulate the situation well. I think they were trying to talk about the aliens and sedition act, and some basic decency, but got a little carried away.

Re:Rights? Right. (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40130293)

I believe the discussion was about the allegations of Romney's bullying someone in high school. The teacher went ballistic when someone suggested Obama might have done something similar. And if you listen carefully you can hear the teacher say "Bush was a shitty president".

Re:Rights? Right. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40131077)

And there were bits about people getting arrested during the Bush presidency for such criticism. Whatever, random teacher sucks. Things to get upset about? It doesn't make the list.

Free speech, what are the li its of it?

I dunno, but I do think birthers like Orly Taitz should be sanctioned. Free speech doesn't trump decorum in court.

Re:Rights? Right. (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40130233)

One teacher says something stupid in a classroom, we extrapolate as if it's federal law. Someone points out that this is dumb and someone else cites something completely different as an example of the first. Unwashed dolt comes out of the woodwork to tell us how communism is the answer... thread spins down the rabbit hole.

Re:Rights? Right. (1)

Opportunist (166417) | more than 2 years ago | (#40130581)

And now think what a beowulf cluster of those could accomplish!

Re:Rights? Right. (1)

DarwinSurvivor (1752106) | more than 2 years ago | (#40131369)

And absolutely nothing of value was lost^h^h^h^hcreated.

Re:Rights? Right. (1)

Opportunist (166417) | more than 2 years ago | (#40132333)

And In Soviet Russia, nothing of value creates you.

Re:Rights? Right. (1)

TapeCutter (624760) | more than 2 years ago | (#40132913)

And now think what a beowulf cluster of those could accomplish!

A slashdot mirror?

Re:Rights? Right. (1)

Lehk228 (705449) | more than 2 years ago | (#40130335)

article is in the NY (com)Post, i wouldn't worry too much about it.

Re:Rights? Right. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40130039)

No, that's Thailand. And that's another example of a law that's ostensibly unrelated to it being used to curb dissent, as the king has made it quite clear that he doesn't much care what's said about him. The government ignored him, of course.

Re:Rights? Right. (1)

hawkinspeter (831501) | more than 2 years ago | (#40130129)

When I visited Thailand, I got the impression that most Thais love their monarchy and didn't think that the law was unfair.

Re:Rights? Right. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40130641)

It has nothing to do with loving or hating the current monarch, at least not in the European constitutional democratic monarchy I live in. It is to do with the fact that the monarch doesn't have any say/powers in the democratic process. The prime minister/cabinet are responsible for every action, the effect is that the monarch has no free speech so can't defend itself, the only legal recourse is the government using laws to defend the monarch. So there are laws to restrict free speech attacking the monarch, they are not used frequently but the last cocurrence that comes to mind was a couple of years ago.

Re:Rights? Right. (2)

just_a_monkey (1004343) | more than 2 years ago | (#40130703)

But then why do they feel they need the law? If almost no-one will defame the king, isn't it easier to just, say, ignore the fools that don't love him?

Re:Rights? Right. (4, Funny)

Jesus_C_of_Nazareth (2629713) | more than 2 years ago | (#40130253)

That's Thailand, but don't let that put you off avoiding Malaysia as a holiday destination. Malaysia has Islam has its state religion, but claims to offer freedom of religion. Now, as you can imagine I don't agree with Islam, yet I'm sanguine on the whole thing. Sure, I spent the best part of a day nailed to a tree for these people, and they then go off following some schizophrenic local warlord. Sorry, that seems really ungrateful to me, and don't get me started on those Mormons and their crazy notion that they'll one day become space gods.

They have freedom of religion, yet by law Malaysians of a certain ethnic original are automatically Muslims. Under some pretty common interpretations of Islam, to leave Islam is to be invite death. Yes, great freedom of religion there. Next time I come to Earth I'll sure want a nice holiday before I get back to work. I know Thailand and Malaysia are pretty low on the list of places I'd like to visit, and so they should be for anyone not wanting their money to support these guys who make my old neighbors in Nazareth (you know who you are!) seem progressive by comparison.

They tend to forget these things in their tourism adverts. To be fair, the U.S. rarely mentions the genital groping TSA when looking for tourists, and they rarely publicize the notion of "constitution free zones" wherever Bush/Obama decide that discarding freedom in the face of a marginal and unlikely threat is the right thing to do. Perhaps Spain is where I'll head to. Good food (the olives in Heaven are disappointing) and wines, and the women are exceptional if you can stand the tempers.

Re:Rights? Right. (1)

WillDraven (760005) | more than 2 years ago | (#40131991)

Perhaps Spain is where I'll head to. Good food (the olives in Heaven are disappointing) and wines, and the women are exceptional if you can stand the tempers.

I'd go for Portugal instead. Similar, but with all the drugs decriminalized.

Re:Rights? Right. (1)

bargainsale (1038112) | more than 2 years ago | (#40130353)

I think you're probably thinking of Thailand.

Re:Rights? Right. (1)

Opportunist (166417) | more than 2 years ago | (#40130559)

Then use fire to fight fire. Use the name of the president (or whoever is in charge of the government there) to slander the king and watch them duke it out.

Re:Rights? Right. (1)

Sulphur (1548251) | more than 2 years ago | (#40130619)

Isn't Malaysia the country where you can be arrested for insulting the king? Who cares about whether this law "goes too far"?

Did you just insult the king and his laws?

Why the difference (5, Insightful)

Nerdfest (867930) | more than 2 years ago | (#40129999)

I still don't get why people seem to insist on different laws for "cyber" something versus "in real life" something. Bullying is bullying. Threats are threats. Adjust your existing laws accordingly, but they should cover both things the same way.

Re:Why the difference (3, Funny)

Belial6 (794905) | more than 2 years ago | (#40130139)

Because with "cyber" bullying, the nerds are on equal or better footing. We can't have that.

Re:Why the difference (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40130199)

Because the world wide web is this new and mysterious thing, full of boobies and buzzwords. I imagine the obsession with "cybering-up" nouns will die out as more and more of the population log on and begin surfing the information superhighway.

Christ, when I hear the cyber thing it puts me in mind of elderly white men trying to connect to young black youths by saying "you da man" and expressing an appreciation for the raps of Ice Tea.

Re:Why the difference (0)

ShanghaiBill (739463) | more than 2 years ago | (#40130217)

Bullying is bullying.

No it isn't, because "cyber-bullying" isn't really bullying. There is no "on-line" way to punch someone in the stomach.

Anyone who thinks an insult is the same as a punch, has never had to deal with a real bully.

Re:Why the difference (4, Insightful)

Nerdfest (867930) | more than 2 years ago | (#40130271)

You can put someone down, harass them, etc, on-line exactly the same way you can in person. Punching someone in the stomach is assault, not bullying, and I assume that they already have laws for that. Just because the bullying doesn't involve assault does not make it less damaging.

Re:Why the difference (4, Insightful)

ShanghaiBill (739463) | more than 2 years ago | (#40130389)

You can put someone down, harass them, etc, on-line exactly the same way you can in person.

No you can't. You cannot turn off a real bully by clicking your mouse.

Re:Why the difference (1, Insightful)

Nerdfest (867930) | more than 2 years ago | (#40130689)

You can walk away, which is the equivalent. It's already happened, the damage has been done. Here in Canada, (and I've seen several in the US as well) there have been quite a few cases of openly gay high school students committing suicide after being verbally bullied for many years. It's not that easy to turn it off in real life, or on-line without cutting yourself off from society at large. Most of the "nerds" that I know put up with pretty much the same thing in school. I'm quite surprised that people here on SlashDot are having a hard time grasping the concept.

Re:Why the difference (2, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40131041)

Online bullying may have analogues to real life bullying but they are not equivalent. While assault may be something different than bullying, in real life there is an implied threat of immediate assault which may make one more hesitant to just walk away. Online is just not the same even if it is a bad thing.

Re:Why the difference (2, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40131997)

Walk away? The bullies LET you walk away?

What fantasy world is this where someone can just walk away from their tormentors and not be followed and attacked?

On Facebook, you can block people. In real life, you're stuck with them.

Re:Why the difference (2)

WillDraven (760005) | more than 2 years ago | (#40132027)

You can't "turn off" a cyber bully either.

True, you may be able to ignore their posts, but you can't stop them from spreading hurtful lies (or hurtful truths) to everybody else in your social circle. You can pretty well destroy someones life by making accusations of pedophilia, beastiality, etc.

Even if you can sue them for slander and win, your life will be pretty difficult when your potential employers google you and see "John Q. Target has been accused by several local farmers of sexually assaulting their livestock."

Re:Why the difference (1)

cheekyjohnson (1873388) | more than 2 years ago | (#40132067)

True, you may be able to ignore their posts, but you can't stop them from spreading hurtful lies (or hurtful truths) to everybody else in your social circle.

Why are you readily giving up your information on the internet, anyway? Why are people in your social circle believing random rumors? Perhaps they're not people you'd like to have in your "social circle."

You can pretty well destroy someones life by making accusations of pedophilia, beastiality, etc.

And whose fault is that, really? The people who believe the rumors and then act on the misinformation. I'd say they're mostly at fault for that bit of stupidity.

Re:Why the difference (2)

WillDraven (760005) | more than 2 years ago | (#40132211)

My point is you don't even have to own a damn computer to get cyber bullied or slandered.

First of all, who said that cyber bullying means the person doing it doesn't know you in real life?

And even if none of your friends believe what's been said about you, that doesn't help if your unemployable for anything more than minimum wage jobs because on the internet your name is synonymous with "raper of animals." You cant just tell the people who won't hire you that they're being stupid and have them go "Oh you're right! Sure, we would love for "John the Sheepfucker" to be our chief engineer. Welcome aboard!"

"Pretend the problem doesn't exist" is almost never the correct solution to anything.

Re:Why the difference (1)

cheekyjohnson (1873388) | more than 2 years ago | (#40132321)

First of all, who said that cyber bullying means the person doing it doesn't know you in real life?

No one. But in that case, you probably have a real bully on your hands.

And even if none of your friends believe what's been said about you, that doesn't help if your unemployable for anything more than minimum wage jobs because on the internet your name is synonymous with "raper of animals."

Employers will believe random rumors about you? As I said, I believe that is simply idiotic. Some seem to like to blame others for their own stupidity. "Sorry I buy into random rumors spread around on the internet, but it's that other guy's fault, I swear!"

Perhaps rather than blame a few individuals spreading idiotic rumors on the internet (although I'd say they are at fault for spreading the rumors), we blame the people actually 'harming' the person in some way (such as not hiring them for a job because they're idiotic enough to believe random rumors).

"Pretend the problem doesn't exist" is almost never the correct solution to anything.

No one ever stated that it was a solution. Whether it's actually a problem or not is quite subjective.

Re:Why the difference (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40130539)

spoken like someone without a clue.

Re:Why the difference (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40130663)

You dumb faggot.

Re:Why the difference (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40131339)

I cam going to kick your face in. There I just bullied you based on your retarded believe.

Are you scared, you should be, because I am write something else about you whom I have no idea whom you really are.

Cyber is turd dropping unless I can actually reach out and hurt you. Please people write anything you want about me it means nothing at all, since again I don't have to read or care. Problem maybe comes with young adults and how fixated they are about what others think, sorry their lives are so bad but we can't make laws for a minority of mentally deranged people with OCD and depression.

Re:Why the difference (1)

cheekyjohnson (1873388) | more than 2 years ago | (#40132081)

but we can't make laws for a minority of mentally deranged people with OCD and depression.

Sure we can... if it's for the children! Then every piece of legislation is okay as long as children really are in danger (because they're objectively more important than everyone else)!

Re:Why the difference (1)

WillDraven (760005) | more than 2 years ago | (#40132089)

Please people write anything you want about me it means nothing at all, since again I don't have to read or care.

You posted this as an Anonymous Coward because you know this simply isn't true. Give your real identity and make the same request. See how things go for you when the top couple result for googling your name and address are people complaining about how you raped their poor innocent family pet or mentally challenged sister.

Potential employers don't even have to believe the accusations. They'll refrain from hiring you simply because they don't want your name associated with their business.

This is an extreme example but you could achieve the same effect simply by one person with a grudge making a couple of dozen sock puppet accounts and claiming your an antisocial jerk who likes to start fights over imagined insults.

Re:Why the difference (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40132809)

Just because the bullying doesn't involve assault does not make it less damaging.

That makes no sense at all. Sticks and stones.

Re:Why the difference (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40130281)

true i caved in a locker with the head of my bully. bullys need to have their asses kicked hard. if they end up paralyzed, even better.

Re:Why the difference (1)

Opportunist (166417) | more than 2 years ago | (#40130625)

The only difference is that online bullying leaves a very undeniable mark, unlike real bullying which is easily brushed aside as little Geeky "fell down the stairs", clumsy little idiot that he is, and we'll leave it at that because besides him, nobody will actually raise a voice about it and there won't be any evidence it has been otherwise. Bully says he fell down the stairs, teachers follow up because it's easier that way and everyone is happy.

With cyber-bullying there is undeniable proof that there has been real bullying, so it has to stop because it's just not possible to sweep it under the rug.

Simple as that.

Re:Why the difference (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40130965)

Perhaps a society creates the anti-insult or harassment laws as a way to lessen the inevitable consequences of the mentioned in the form of repercussionary violence, which usually touches, or takes out the innocent as well. This way the society really don't care about the feelings, security or rights of the bully or the bullied, but instead bluntly tries to lessen the possibility of violence for any reason.

Re:Why the difference (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40131207)

No it isn't, because "cyber-bullying" isn't really bullying. There is no "on-line" way to punch someone in the stomach.

Anyone who thinks an insult is the same as a punch, has never had to deal with a real bully.

You're right. The insult is worse. Bruises heal. Minds shatter.

Re:Why the difference (1)

cheekyjohnson (1873388) | more than 2 years ago | (#40132107)

Bruises heal. Minds shatter.

And constant physical abuse can also cause the latter.

In my opinion, there is something wrong with someone if they're so oversensitive that they can't withstand a random person on the internet mocking them. I don't even know how such people manage to survive in society.

Re:Why the difference (1)

bhagwad (1426855) | more than 2 years ago | (#40132335)

I would choose to be insulted over getting physically hit any day.

Re:Why the difference (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40130269)

I don't get why people insist on laws to combat bullying. Is bullying any worse now than it was in say, the past 10,000 years? Assault and conveying a threat are already illegal in most places. Anti-bullying is just the cause du jour. Drunk driving is way down, it's illegal to smoke outdoors in a lot of places. Hmm...what's next. I know, let's come up with special laws to combat an undesirable but consistent human behavior that has been around since the beginning of time.

Re:Why the difference (1)

TFAFalcon (1839122) | more than 2 years ago | (#40130287)

It's because lawmakers likely teach their children how to bully, but don't know enough about cyberbullying to do the same. Also, bullying is less likely to harm the bullies political career later in life. It's much harder to 'expose' your opponent if all you have is the word of a former victim, then it is if you have detailed transcripts of everything he/she wrote.

So cyberbullying makes a hands fell-good tough-on-crime target. Prohibit something that they don't care about, but many parents do.

Re:Why the difference (1)

rtb61 (674572) | more than 2 years ago | (#40131125)

However there seems to be a real failing in this law to differentiate between push and pull 'sic' cuber-bullying. The bully visiting you and hurling insults versus you visiting the bully and being insulted or meeting on neutral ground and being insulted. What level of exchange constitutes bullying and minors versus adults. Of course why minors are even on an adult network when minors are not allowed unaccompanied in any other adult forums like night clubs or hotels, well that another story, perhaps it has something to with corporations and politicians wanting to be able to censor whom ever they choose to censor for what ever reason they can stretch into law.

Re:Why the difference (1)

cheekyjohnson (1873388) | more than 2 years ago | (#40132133)

Of course why minors are even on an adult network when minors are not allowed unaccompanied in any other adult forums like night clubs or hotels

Probably because there is no way to stop them. The parents are the only ones who have a chance to stop them, but some simply don't care (and for good reason, in my opinion). I don't see any point in stopping them, either.

Re:Why the difference (1)

rtb61 (674572) | more than 2 years ago | (#40132357)

The point is you don't attempt to turn an adults network into suitable for toddlers network because of lazy parents. If you want a child suitable internet you specifically create one.

Re:Why the difference (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40130933)

Because it makes the "politicos" look good in the oppinion pools... as in "they are protecting the children!". :)

Re:Why the difference (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40131325)

Simple stupid, don't read, there is your little mind able to grasp reality, don't come back here or I will post something stupid about you that no one else will care. Now if you where in front of me and I did not like you I will say without any chance of been wrong your ass would be mine physically and mentally. Intimidation comes from actual physical power to hurt you.

Now if you want you can call me anything you want, you can tell me how your going to hurt me or call the gay police on me and I will ROFLMAO and skip over anything you write. See the difference, still don't then your just mentally challenged.

Ok end of dumb explanation.

Re:Why the difference (2)

thePowerOfGrayskull (905905) | more than 2 years ago | (#40131875)

I can understand what leads to laws such as this, or the recent NY attempt to eliminate anonymous posting. I don't entirely support the logic, but I can understand it:

We've always had the ability to be anonymous in our insults. We can shout our insults from the crowd or dress up in white robes and a hood to attend the KKK rally. But the major difference is that in those cases, we are not so easily free of the consequences of our actions. It is easy now to post pretty much anywhere under a false or nonexistent identity, and to rarely have to face any consequences. Yes, it's easy (or it should be) for someone to ignore the comments, but that isn't the point -- it's more about being willing to take responsibility for what you write and say. If real names were attached to the things we all said, many people would think twice about saying them. (As I recall there were some studies a few years back that demonstrated just that).

So to directly answer your question:

I still don't get why people seem to insist on different laws for "cyber" something versus "in real life" something.

I think that they're trying to put them on equal footing in a way that they presently are not (it's easier to insult/bully online then in 'real life'; this law and those like it seek to change that.

Like I said, I don't entirely support this logic as it can lead to a lot of abuse in the end. But I can understand how they arrived there.

Re:Why the difference (1)

bhagwad (1426855) | more than 2 years ago | (#40132319)

Because anyone can just ignore words on a screen. Sticks and stones and all that...

Re:Why the difference (2)

tlhIngan (30335) | more than 2 years ago | (#40132653)

I still don't get why people seem to insist on different laws for "cyber" something versus "in real life" something. Bullying is bullying. Threats are threats. Adjust your existing laws accordingly, but they should cover both things the same way.

Because there are twp properties about the Internet that do not apply to local life as we're used to.

1) The internet memory is infinite, and forever. Attempts to wipe the memory result in it being more spread out and diverse (aka Streisand Effect). Once something is put on it, it's impossible to take down. To do otherwise requires some sort of DRM, and we know how effective that is.

2) The internet is global. What was once a simple scrawl on a bathroom wall is now a broadcast heard from Timbuktu to Antartica.

These two, taken together, mean that the damage from simple cyberbullying is far greater than it ever was.

Hell, think of the Romney "Gay Hazing" incidents. We can't tell the truth because it lies only between a few people and memories are fragile. However, had it happened today, it's an indelible record that the whole world will know about.

There's an Onion piece about "the last electable President" because he doesn't use any form of social network or the Internet and is some redneck from some small town no one's heard of and thus has no scandal to possibly contaminate his leadership.

Hell, if you're a kid being bullied on Facebook - print out those posts. If you're down in the dumps 10-15 years from now, you can probably sue the heck out of your bullies for making you unemployable by all those things they said so many years ago. It might work. Or hey, maybe use it to draw up scandals in the future.

Basic Overview (5, Informative)

JabberWokky (19442) | more than 2 years ago | (#40130009)

For anybody who wants a basic overview of Malay law regarding these matters, there's an issue of the Malayan Law Journal (actually an article supplement) that covers this in language easily understood by the layperson (and it's also in English, to boot). The PDF is located here: http://jeraldgomez.com/pdf/7cd40a1889d4539feffda786372ff33b.pdf [jeraldgomez.com] and I would point you to page 3 (page 4 of the PDF).

Basically, they are based on English Common Law, and signed the UDHR, but have a history of legislation that allows detention without trial, originally designed to combat communism.

Re:Basic Overview (1)

spire3661 (1038968) | more than 2 years ago | (#40130103)

Combat communism is a euphemism for control the populace, nothing more.

Re:Basic Overview (2)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40130225)

red commies, capitalists, terrorists, hooligans, pedefiles, Jews, etc. etc.

Any law that removes freedoms guaranteed in the constitution for the purpose of fighting any specific "undesirables" because these are "special circumstances", is a law that will be used to crush dissent, "wrong" opinions, and generally keep people in power in power. These are all slippery slope laws that have no business in modern societies.

"Special circumstances" are what the courts are for, not politicians.

Al, is that you? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40130283)

Combat communism is a euphemism for control the populace, nothing more.

How quaintly 1950's!

In 2012, "War on Terror" is the euphemism for controlling the populace.

Re:Al, is that you? (1)

spire3661 (1038968) | more than 2 years ago | (#40130607)

It has the same face, and I grew up during the Cold War, you'll pardon me if its hard to see a distinction.

Re:Al, is that you? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40131375)

We had communist here walking freely even during the cold war.

These laws are not like that. McCarthyism is what these laws basically are, and we got rid of that bag of paranoid sack of vomit from politics.

Re:Basic Overview (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40130789)

Basically, they are based on English Common Law, and signed the UDHR, but have a history of legislation that allows detention without trial, originally designed to combat communism.

And the United States of Amerika has Gitmo for indefinite detention of those the government unilaterally deems without trial to be terrorists or terrorist sympathizers. Funny how a US military base is located in a Communist country yet there own citizens cannot visit the island nation as tourists...though they could visit if deemed a terrorist. Lovely world when logic and ethics, much less the rule of law, cease to mean anything.

Re:Basic Overview (1)

realityimpaired (1668397) | more than 2 years ago | (#40131421)

Child soldiers, too [wikipedia.org] . He was 15 when they arrested him, and his detention at Gitmo (and continued detention in Canada) is a clear violation of the Geneva Conventions for the treatment of child soldiers.

Re:Basic Overview (1)

jrumney (197329) | more than 2 years ago | (#40131861)

But, but... he's not a child soldier, he's a child illegal combatant, so human rights laws do not apply.

Good. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40130143)

You should be responsible for what happens on your internet connection and online accounts...

Yes, I know it's hypocritical to type this as an anony coward. :P

relevant captcha: cunning

Re:Good. (2, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40130215)

Sure, and when I steal a screwdriver from your unlocked garden shed, you should be held legally responsible when I later break in to your house to stab some sense in to your head. Do we really want requirements for holding online accounts to be akin to owning guns?

Re:Good. (1)

gdshaw (1015745) | more than 2 years ago | (#40130299)

You should be responsible for what happens on your internet connection and online accounts...

The Internet wouldn't be economically viable if you applied that rule equally to everyone, because no company could risk the liability of providing any form of large-scale transit service.

You could set some arbitrary dividing line somewhere on the scale from 'householder' to 'multinational telecoms corporation', but why should they have greater protection under the law when they provide a service to me, than I have providing a service to my family?

(Not counting the obvious answer that they have more money to pay lobbyists ...)

Re:Good. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40131221)

No, you should be responsible for what you do on your internet connection and online accounts (and other peoples', as well, if you get access to them). There's no way you can hold me responsible if someone gets on my connection and does whatever illegal thing is the topic of the day without my knowledge or permission.

Asian Law (1)

drgregoryhouse (1909704) | more than 2 years ago | (#40130245)

I'm asian and not a lawyer. However it is well known that the accuse here bear a some burden of proof. And you are not allowed to be represented by a lawyer while under investigation/interrogation. US laws do not apply here. I'm referring to general legal matters not referring specifically to the Internal Security Act which allow detention without trial.

Re:Asian Law (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40131423)

So basically person can be tortured and they have no recourse?

Bush area legal system he wanted to put here also. I bet the rulers don't have to worry about those laws, since they sound like laws for peasants.

Time to get creative. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40130255)

I guess it's time for the king of Malaysia to insult Mohammed.

overkill (0)

AxemRed (755470) | more than 2 years ago | (#40130443)

I worry that they're going a little too far in trying to deal with "cyber" bullying. IMO, bullying online is mostly the same as it is in person. It doesn't always involve violence or threats of violence. It's usually just verbal harassment which is, by definition, repetitive. My main concern is that they're going to end up passing a law that treats a one-time thing, like an argument or a heat-of-the-moment insult, as the same thing as bullying.

Good Luck With This... (1)

LVSlushdat (854194) | more than 2 years ago | (#40130535)

Kinda curious on how they intend to apply this "law" to somebody OUTSIDE Malaysia "cyber-bullying" someone inside Malaysia.. The denizens of /. know how well laws like this work when applied to a world-wide medium like the internet, namely THEY DON'T!! I guess the old wisdom that you have to have 75% of your brain removed, 100% of your honesty to become a politician is true..

May? (-1)

Karmashock (2415832) | more than 2 years ago | (#40130553)

They were comically overblown from the simple descriptions.

Look just but a big warning label on the internet cable and make people that sign up for service sign a wavier.

Someone might hurt your pathetic touchy over blown sense of self on the internet. And that might make you sad. By going on the internet you accept that that is your problem and not the duty of the government to make you feel good about yourself even though anyone that actually gets truly offended probably deserves it if only for being that weak.

harsh? Welcome to the 21st century, snowflakes. Toughen up or stay off the grid.

these were not "initiated by good intentions" (1)

holophrastic (221104) | more than 2 years ago | (#40130595)

this whole cyber-bullying is nonsense. It needn't ever have been anything more than standard slander and libel laws which already existed.

I certainly can't say that I made it through my childhood without being bullied. But minus the actual bruises, I'd never suggest that I'd be better off without the bullies.

Quite frankly, the amount of adult insulting I've received from family, friends, and clients for having spent a real amount of money on trees is for more offensive than anything from my school days. Probably because I've long since learned to ignore other people's opinions.

Guess where I learned that lesson. Guess when.

Re:these were not "initiated by good intentions" (1)

lexsird (1208192) | more than 2 years ago | (#40131811)

These are important life lessons that normal people learn.

Re:these were not "initiated by good intentions" (1)

cheekyjohnson (1873388) | more than 2 years ago | (#40132773)

Probably because I've long since learned to ignore other people's opinions.

You're not sensitive enough. You need to cry and commit suicide when other people express an opinion that you don't agree with.

This is all for the children, so anything is okay.

You are mistaken (1)

paiute (550198) | more than 2 years ago | (#40130719)

There is no dissent in Malaysia. Everyone there tells me so.

"the amendments were initiated by good intentions" (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40131475)

Similar examples:
"the dissidents were silenced by good intentions"
"the libraries were destroyed by good intentions"
"the children were drowned by good intentions"

Can anyone tell me what's wrong with these sentences? ...

That's right! the correct phrase is "with good intentions".

Malaysia? (2)

gelfling (6534) | more than 2 years ago | (#40131707)

It will be used exclusively against people who criticize Islam.

In this week’s issue of (1)

cffvdgb (2648771) | more than 2 years ago | (#40131885)

In this week’s issue of Grazia luxury brand Louis Vuitton exclusively reveal their glamorous spring/summer’12 Louis vuitton Sunglasses [louisvuitt...sesusa.com] range by showing them on a new generation of ‘It’ girls and boys. It's a veritable who’s who of the hippest people on planet earth right now, and if you like to stay in the know you should consider that an extra good reason to hotfoot it to Louis vuitton Outlet [louisvuitt...sesusa.com] – TODAY
Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?