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!

Australia Attorney General Proposes New Laws To Stop Twitter Trolls

samzenpus posted about 2 years ago | from the tweet-nicely dept.

Australia 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."

cancel ×

213 comments

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

First porst (0, Flamebait)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41321379)

What will the autralian attourney do about first porsts ?

Re:First porst (0, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41321445)

What will the autralian attourney do about first porsts ?

Masturdbate to them after pouring hot grits in his pants like there was no tomorrow.

Re:First porst (0)

Macfox (50100) | about 2 years ago | (#41321583)

The "attourney" is a female.

Re:First porst (5, Funny)

MysteriousPreacher (702266) | about 2 years ago | (#41321493)

Institute compulsory spellchecking?

Re:First porst (0)

ushere (1015833) | about 2 years ago | (#41321511)

lol!!!!

Re:First porst (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41322231)

Institute compulsory wooshchecking?

Right... (5, Insightful)

simplexion (1142447) | about 2 years ago | (#41321385)

This isn't going to end well for Roxon.

Re:Right... (1)

sd4f (1891894) | about 2 years ago | (#41322165)

Of course it isn't, she's part of what is probably the least most popular government for about 40 years in australia. The opposition actually won a single seat more than the government, but the government made deals with independents so they hung onto governance by their teeth alone. They'll be gone next year, the problem is, will the opposition reverse the bad things from this government; they've been posturing that way, but who knows, all politicians are crap.

Poxy Roxy (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41322199)

Should be assassinated.

What trolls? (4, Funny)

rexkbh2100 (2709583) | about 2 years ago | (#41321395)

Really, everyone know's trolls don't really exist! I check under every bridge I cross and I've never found one. Silly people.

Re:What trolls? (1)

schaiba (2708709) | about 2 years ago | (#41321647)

Really, everyone know's trolls don't really exist! I check under every bridge I cross and I've never found one. Silly people.

I suppose this is some intentionate misspelling. Right?

Re:What trolls? (1)

oldhack (1037484) | about 2 years ago | (#41322005)

The greatest trick the troll pulled was ... goatse?

The obvious questions (5, Insightful)

DiamondGeezer (872237) | about 2 years ago | (#41321401)

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?

Re:The obvious questions (5, Interesting)

niftydude (1745144) | about 2 years ago | (#41321421)

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 (5, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41321587)

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 (4, Funny)

RaceProUK (1137575) | about 2 years ago | (#41321733)

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 (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41321907)

Yes, I'm the smartass who moderated you 'Troll'.

Re:The obvious questions (4, Funny)

MysteriousPreacher (702266) | about 2 years ago | (#41321949)

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:The obvious questions (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41322159)

don't forget the goatse links. or maybe they'd just be goats, I'm not entirely sure.

Re:The obvious questions (2)

gsslay (807818) | about 2 years ago | (#41321599)

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 (4, Informative)

Dr Max (1696200) | about 2 years ago | (#41321615)

Technically we don't have free speech in Australia.

Re:The obvious questions (3, Informative)

HJED (1304957) | about 2 years ago | (#41321661)

Unless its related to politics which is apparently covered under the constitutional right to democractic elections... Ironicaly many trolls would be able to claim their speach is political, I'm sure that this could end up with some very intresting court battles.

Re:The obvious questions (2)

L4t3r4lu5 (1216702) | about 2 years ago | (#41321945)

Technically you have free speech the same way that the UK has free speech. There is no "constitutional right", but there are several articles in different legislations which protect speech, and numerous examples in case law.

Re:The obvious questions (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41322131)

Nor do we have free speech in the US, for those of us who can admit it.

Re:The obvious questions (1)

cyp43r (945301) | about 2 years ago | (#41321473)

It sounds like he's already decided it's breaking the law.

Re:The obvious questions (1)

LordSnooty (853791) | about 2 years ago | (#41321545)

> Who gets to decide what is, and is not, a crime? Will anything be a crime, and under what statute? How much will the "crime patrol" cost? In other words, it's a combination of the police, the justice system and elected representatives. Just like every other act that causes enough distress amongst others to be considered a "crime".

Re:The obvious questions (2)

udachny (2454394) | about 2 years ago | (#41321557)

What do you mean, who? /. moderators get to decide [slashdot.org]

Re:The obvious questions (1)

HJED (1304957) | about 2 years ago | (#41321649)

hm, especially since the media has been reporting that they can allready be charged for "harrasment using a carriage service".

Re:The obvious questions (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41321997)

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?

I do.

Nicola Roxon is a Troll, a filthy murderer and a paedophile.

This post is not a troll.
Really.
Just trust me on this one.

Re:The obvious questions (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41322041)

LOL. At this moment Roxon has the AFP going through phone books wondering why they can't find Mr. A. Coward.

Australia doesnt have Free Speech provisions (5, Informative)

The_Myth (84113) | about 2 years ago | (#41321405)

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:Australia doesnt have Free Speech provisions (1)

bug1 (96678) | about 2 years ago | (#41321431)

But if the servers are in a different country...

Re:Australia doesnt have Free Speech provisions (5, Informative)

Vylen (800165) | about 2 years ago | (#41321521)

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 (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41321463)

this really makes me want to go troll some australian websites, now that I know your country is composed of pussies who don't know how to close a window or not take something seriously.

Re:Australia doesnt have Free Speech provisions (1)

Dr Max (1696200) | about 2 years ago | (#41321633)

It's not all of us, but some how (probably to shut them up) we put all the pussies in positions of power.

Re:Australia doesnt have Free Speech provisions (5, Informative)

CuteSteveJobs (1343851) | about 2 years ago | (#41321525)

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:Australia doesnt have Free Speech provisions (1)

ciderbrew (1860166) | about 2 years ago | (#41321561)

MORE POWER!

Re:Australia doesnt have Free Speech provisions (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41321627)

If you could go to jail for offending anyone online, the Susie O'Brien would be in jail long ago.

Re:Australia doesnt have Free Speech provisions (1)

Nerdfest (867930) | about 2 years ago | (#41321877)

I would guess that they want more reason to track you and intercept and record all of your communications.

Re:Australia doesnt have Free Speech provisions (4, Insightful)

asifyoucare (302582) | about 2 years ago | (#41321933)

Farah (a footballer) has demanded new laws and the Prime Minister (a lawyer) and Attorney-General (also a lawyer) agreed.>

And this same Farah once tweeted to the Prime Minister that she should get herself a noose for her birthday. He is a dumb hypocrite.

P.S. This is the worst Australian government of my lifetime. Even if I agreed with their policies, and I don't, I'd despise them for their incompetence. They like to busy themselves in all sorts of minor matters and bugger it up every time.

Re:Australia doesnt have Free Speech provisions (1)

L4t3r4lu5 (1216702) | about 2 years ago | (#41321971)

...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 (1)

drsmithy (35869) | about 2 years ago | (#41322025)

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.

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 (4, Informative)

CuteSteveJobs (1343851) | about 2 years ago | (#41322099)

>You can say bad things all you want, you just can't be defamatory.

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]

Parent talking out of their arse. (3, Informative)

mjwx (966435) | about 2 years ago | (#41321575)

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 (3, Insightful)

CuteSteveJobs (1343851) | about 2 years ago | (#41321663)

So you think you have free speech because a government web site says you do? Let's look at that a little deeper:
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 ..." (which is true, assuming there's a law that says a soldier is allowed to kill someone else, and the "Australian" in question in my sentence happens to be one, and feel like killing an enemy...)

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. (3, Interesting)

mjwx (966435) | about 2 years ago | (#41322057)

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

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).

" 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. "

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.

And it ends with a doozy: " Freedom of speech is not an excuse to harm others" (even if they deserve it!)

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.

We do not censor the media and may criticise the government without fear of arrest.

Which is key to what is being discussed here.

Re:Another person talking out of their arse. {---- (1)

CuteSteveJobs (1343851) | about 2 years ago | (#41322235)

>Finally, I just love how you left out this part.
>> 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 arrested and jailed. A lot of information is withheld from them: The Attorney-General blacked out 90% of that web snooping report. If they report something that later turns out not to be true they can end up sued for defamation even if they did every check they could and even if they honestly believed it were true. You can never be sure what someone else tells you is 100% true, so they can't take the chance, and so don't report on it. Journalists are surrounded by lawyers who will not take even a remote risk of breaking Australia's defamation laws, so you the public don't get to find this stuff out. Australia is not like the US. Reality is more complicated than the rosy picture you have been painted.
This was a good series but is no longer available online: http://www.sbs.com.au/documentary/program/554/Law-and-Disorder [sbs.com.au]

Re:Parent talking out of their arse. (2)

HJED (1304957) | about 2 years ago | (#41321683)

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

Re:Parent talking out of their arse. (1)

mjwx (966435) | about 2 years ago | (#41322067)

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:Parent talking out of their arse. (1)

HJED (1304957) | about 2 years ago | (#41322229)

Whilst you example is valid, it also includes other things which are a bit more contriversial, such as what is interpreted as 'terorist publications', as supposed to religouse or political publications, etc.

Internet only? (5, Insightful)

MavEtJu (241979) | about 2 years ago | (#41321425)

Or will they also go after the shockjocks and the printed media?

twits (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41321449)

2010 'Won't somebody think about the children!'

2012 'Won't somebody think about the twits!'

Re:twits (2)

RaceProUK (1137575) | about 2 years ago | (#41321741)

2010 'Won't somebody think about the children!'

2012 'Won't somebody think about the overpaid sportspeople!'

FTFY

Roxon doesn't get it (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41321469)

But then, being a politician does that to people. Or maybe it's just our dumping ground for people too stupid to do useful work.

People get brave (0, Troll)

Grayhand (2610049) | about 2 years ago | (#41321471)

Trolling is just another form of bullying. Cowards get brave when no one knows who they are. Why is trolling considered such a right on the net? We're talking a few percent that want to ruin it for the rest of us. I like having the anonymous option but it really is a few percent that abuse the priviledge. We can't let a handful of kids living in their parent's basements rule the net. FYI disagreeing with the majority isn't trolling! The word Troll gets badly abused on Slashdot. Trolls are the ones trying to get a rise out of people for the sake of causing trouble. There's a massive difference between a troll and some one that doesn't think Apple is the anti-christ.

Re:People get brave (3, Insightful)

nstlgc (945418) | about 2 years ago | (#41321607)

Trolling is in the eye of the beholder. I'm sure when Chanology was going on, Scientology would have LOVED a law like this.

Re:People get brave (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41321641)

People like you deserve to be ruled over with an iron fist. You're so quick to give the government ridiculous amounts of power just because someone called you a faggot on Twitter.

Re:People get brave (2)

itsthebin (725864) | about 2 years ago | (#41321655)

one mans troll is another mans philosopher

Re:People get brave (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41321679)

Yes it can be another form of bullying, and yes, not being anonymous can discourage bullies. Not being anonymous can also discourage whistleblowing and discussion of other topics where the revealing of the identity of the person would prevent them from contributing useful things. Is discouraging anonymous bullying worth discouraging every type of anonymous contribution, both bad *and* good? For the sake of the hurt feelings of a few public figures, I'd say no. It's not that trolling is considered "such a right on the net", so much as people recognize that there are sometimes good reasons for being anonymous, and they don't want to toss that away merely for the sake of discouraging trolls.

On top of that, whether such an effort would be technically feasible or effective is dubious. So you manage to eliminate anonymous contributions. Do you really think the worst trolls are going to be discouraged by having to register in a forum with a pseudonym and create a bunch of sock puppet accounts? Or registering with someone else's name/identity? Or the many other ways to spoof the system?

We're talking about words here. While bullying can be persistent and psychologically quite harmful in some instances, a lot can be gained by simply recognizing what a troll is and ignoring them, and/or coming up with systems that allow people to suitably downgrade the visibility of troll comments (like slashdot's moderation system). In the normal world, people can still write a bunch of falsehoods on pieces of paper and post them publicly on the local telephone poles without signing their names. Like a lot of things on the internet, the equivalent can now be done easier and cheaper, but what's happening on the internet isn't fundamentally any different from what current libel laws already handle.

Troll? Define it. (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41321827)

There's a massive difference between a troll and some one that doesn't think Apple is the anti-christ.

A few years ago, anyone who said anything negative about Apple was immediately down modd'ed as ""Troll" or Flamebait" - and stayed down mostly.

And now, it's the opposite.

Unfortunately, we not longer are able to just ignore people who say things we don't like. We have become a World were everyone feels entitled to shut anyone up who says something they don't like - in cases with deadly results (see today's news in the Yemen.)

Re:People get brave (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41321943)

People stop being thin skinned. It solves so many problems and it is quite easy to do. Invest in insensitivity training. To much time has been spent on sensitivity training and now people cry themselves to sleep because they get called (insert whatever makes you cry yourself to sleep here).

How exactly is publishing someones name going to prevent them from talking smack? So someone knows your name? Now what? Unless your name is incredibly rare your name means nothing and nothing will change. My name has over 83 million links on google so yeah what would be changing? You would still need more identifying information and at least some geologic area to look in before you could even begin to find someone exactly like it is now.

So yeah you're fat. Are you going to care enough to go through 83 millions links to try to find me? I'm sure at least one will lead to something about me. The alternative is to realize people talking shit doesn't mean a single thing unless you make it mean something.
Humans will always be human.

Re:People get brave (4, Informative)

drinkypoo (153816) | about 2 years ago | (#41321981)

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.

Nicola Roxon can go bum herself with a dead fox (1)

MysteriousPreacher (702266) | about 2 years ago | (#41321477)

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:Nicola Roxon can go bum herself with a dead fox (2)

Lord Maud'Dib (611577) | about 2 years ago | (#41321531)

I find your post offensive! Now... get off my lawn???

Re:Nicola Roxon can go bum herself with a dead fox (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41321697)

But i find your post offensive. Maybe we should pay a bunch of people to be troll cops so this can be sorted out officially.

Re:Nicola Roxon can go bum herself with a dead fox (1)

MysteriousPreacher (702266) | about 2 years ago | (#41321729)

Good luck in finding me. I'm using a proxy and wearing a false beard!

Re:Nicola Roxon can go bum herself with a dead fox (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41321965)

But do you have a mustache?

Re:Nicola Roxon can go bum herself with a dead fox (1)

Crypto Gnome (651401) | about 2 years ago | (#41322033)

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:Nicola Roxon can go bum herself with a dead fox (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41322129)

Then turn off the porn.

Re:Nicola Roxon can go bum herself with a dead fox (2)

Kupfernigk (1190345) | about 2 years ago | (#41322221)

Given your nick, don't you mean that from where you're standing a merkin looks like a beard?

Re:Nicola Roxon can go bum herself with a dead fox (1)

Vylen (800165) | about 2 years ago | (#41321547)

Freedom of speech? What's that?

pathetic.... (1)

ushere (1015833) | about 2 years ago | (#41321499)

no one HAS to use twitter. get a life, or develop rhino hide....

What is a troll? (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41321503)

Going by current ideas, anybody who doesn't agree with another persons view is a troll!
Freedom of speech is therefore not supported in Australia. (Australia has no bill of rights or real constitution anyway!)
We have become such a baby minded society.
"MUMMY, someone said something nasty to me and made me CRY!!!!! Booohhooooo!!!!!
Oops!, I'm not allowed to say that, I must be a troll, because I had an opinion!
God forbid if anybody in Australia was to actually think for themselves, be grown up, or have an opinion!

Re:What is a troll? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41321513)

Stop trolling the kangaroo jockeys! They don't like it

Re:What is a troll? (1)

HJED (1304957) | about 2 years ago | (#41321695)

Australia does have a constitution, but it does not specify free speach. 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.

(see here for more details [wikipedia.org] )

Re:What is a troll? (3, Insightful)

drinkypoo (153816) | about 2 years ago | (#41321987)

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:What is a troll? (2)

CuteSteveJobs (1343851) | about 2 years ago | (#41322007)

>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.

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 only to "constructive free speech that won't harm someone". There's a lot of BS on that IMMI page like not censoring the press (a journo with a government document can be jailed even if they don't publish it) and Freedom of assembly: see 'Marching Permits'. Yes, you have free speech, but a limited version of it nothing like the US. Don't use it too hard or you mighty break it. ;-) http://www.immi.gov.au/living-in-australia/choose-australia/about-australia/five-freedoms.htm [immi.gov.au]

Another censorship attempt (1)

gweihir (88907) | about 2 years ago | (#41321527)

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:Another censorship attempt (1)

burning-toast (925667) | about 2 years ago | (#41321589)

posting this to undo moderation elsewhere in the thread

Menjadi Pengusaha Sukses, Franchisee Minimarket Al (-1, Offtopic)

kembud (2583605) | about 2 years ago | (#41321555)

Seandainya Saya Jadi Member dan Franchisee Minimarket Alfamart [a-ant.com] , Waralaba Alfamart adalah usaha minimarket yang dimiliki dan dioperasikan berdasarkan kesepakatan waralaba dari PT. Sumber Alfaria Trijaya Tbk, selaku pemegang merek Alfamart. Dengan motto âoeBelanja Puas, Harga Pasâ model bisnis Alfamart adalah menjual berbagai kebutuhan sehari- hari dengan harga terjangkau dan berlokasi di sekitar wilayah perumahan. http://www.blog.a-ant.com/kontes/76-menjadi-pengusaha-sukses2c-franchisee-minimarket-alfamart [a-ant.com]

Re:Menjadi Pengusaha Sukses, Franchisee Minimarket (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41321585)

Indonesian, now that is something I haven't seen spam posts written in before...

A law against trolling?? (3, Insightful)

GeekWithAKnife (2717871) | about 2 years ago | (#41321603)

The irony is that if Nicola Roxon posted this on twitter it would have had to be removed due to trolling. Because really, how do you draw the line between trolling and comments you dislike or anger you and your fat mother?

The last Attorney-General to try this... (1)

Macfox (50100) | about 2 years ago | (#41321613)

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]

Re:The last Attorney-General to try this... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41321673)

Seriously, what is it with Attorney General's and being completely out of touch with technology?
Well, I guess no more than your average minsister for technology, but still!

Intimidation (3, Informative)

mwvdlee (775178) | about 2 years ago | (#41321621)

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:Intimidation (1)

cloth10 (2729403) | about 2 years ago | (#41321881)

Yuo, Someone has got the point...

Re:Intimidation (1)

Crypto Gnome (651401) | about 2 years ago | (#41322049)

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.

Re:Intimidation (1)

gl4ss (559668) | about 2 years ago | (#41322053)

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.

frost %4ist (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41321675)

percent of the *BSD tangle of fatal BSD has a7ways and other party The curtains flew VOLATILE WORLD OF goals. It's when FreeBSD at about 80 Prima donnas, and

The Internet cancer (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41321705)

The Internet cancer [kimmoa.se] .

Re:The Internet cancer (1)

chilvence (1210312) | about 2 years ago | (#41321829)

Yawn.

Try leaving the house. Puts internet politics in perspective.

Don't allow extensions to business (2, Interesting)

andrew3 (2250992) | about 2 years ago | (#41321715)

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:Don't allow extensions to business (1)

SQL Error (16383) | about 2 years ago | (#41321801)

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?

Contact (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41321747)

Nicola Rixon can be contacted at:
nicola <AT> nicolaroxonmp <DOT> com

Uncle chop chop says: (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41321813)

Harden the fuck up!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=unkIVvjZc9Y

This is the 'vile' tweet (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41321947)

"Mr Farah sought police help after he got a tweet sent from a deleted account with the Twitter handle @maxpower118 who said Sonia Farah should be jailed and do hard labour."

http://au.ibtimes.com/articles/383223/20120911/conroy-hits-twitter-failure-turn-over-evidence.htm#.UFHBo66fOp0

The footballer was so appalled by the tweet, that he promptly re-tweeted it to his 27000 followers. In other words he publicized some tiny tweet from some nobody, that was mild, and claimed it was incredibly vile. Politicians seize on the opportunity to suppress anonymous speech.

What the Attorney general is trying, is to remove anonymous speech. This has been on the agenda of many politicians who find it difficult to challenge an idea. AC's comments have no traction unless they are true and have a ring of truth that causes them to be promoted (or in Slashdot terms modded up). A comment by someone who wouldn't be read means nothing because they are quickly ignored.

Trolls are ignored, anonymous truths are promoted.

Politicians hate anonymous speech, because it reveals secrets about them, points out flaws in their logic, and they have no way of responding with the usual ad-hominem attack because the person is a nothing.

Stopping Trolls? (1)

Dracophile (140936) | about 2 years ago | (#41322071)

Ignore. Them.

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 (1)

Rogerborg (306625) | about 2 years ago | (#41322079)

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.

Re:Australia is the ultimate Nanny State (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41322183)

As a Brit I take issue with your claim that Australia is the ultimate nanny state. Just on this topic alone (free speech) Australia's suppression orders are trumped by our super injunctions.

Maybe change your laws ? (1)

Gothmolly (148874) | about 2 years ago | (#41322123)

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?

Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?