Australian PM proposes defamation laws forcing social platforms to unmask trolls

[Syne]

I didn't know (edit: or care that) he had 'freely given [false] personal information' - it doesn't affect the issue of whether or not (in principle) you allow individuals to be traced (doxed) back to the point where you can identify them as (for example) Chinese sockpuppets.

Again:

Unless that scum has actually broken the law then, in principle, you're against free speech.

Still doesn't seem like you understand that Meta using their own information is not doxing. Sharing it publicly is. Saying "Chinese sockpuppets" doesn't identify any individual to the public, hence not doxing nor violating their own terms of use agreement (where they usually agree to not share privately identifiable information).

[Secular Sanity]

"Doxing" is a neologism that has evolved over its brief history. It comes from a spelling alteration of the abbreviation "docs" (for "documents") and refers to "compiling and releasing a dossier of personal information on someone". Essentially, doxing is revealing and publicizing the records of an individual, which were previously private or difficult to obtain.

The term dox derives from the slang "dropping dox," which, according to Wired writer Mat Honan, was "an old-school revenge tactic that emerged from hacker culture in 1990s". Hackers operating outside the law in that era used the breach of an opponent's anonymity as a means to expose opponents to harassment or legal repercussions.

Consequently, doxing often comes with a negative connotation because it can be a vehicle for revenge via the violation of privacy. 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Doxing

What if we exclude Syne's argument of releasing private information to the public to expose people to harassment, and just stick with the legal repercussions, such as defamation, libel, or more serious crimes, e.g., predators?

Self-described pedophile hunters have been warned that they’re setting themselves up for civil suits because the suspects have not been convicted in a court of law, but "Dark Justice" – two men in their 20s who keep their full identities a secret, feel that the disclosure of information is in the public’s best interest.

"The government seem to think that it’s acceptable to leave children at risk by taking money away from the police and organizations that are there to protect children," said Scott. "If you came and spent one day watching what we do, you’d have a heart attack with what we see. The numbers are scary. When we first started doing this, we thought it would be difficult to find these people, but it wasn’t. It was too easy."

What about Megan’s Law? If you reposted public information, could you be setting yourself up for legal ramifications? Certainly not libel, but what if others harassed or harmed the individual due to the information that they received from you? Perhaps.

However, the article at hand is about defamation, and like I said earlier, defamatory speech is not protected under the First Amendment.

"Different types of speech, whether anonymous or not, receive different levels of constitutional protection. Because of its significance in this country's history, political speech is accorded the highest level of protection. Commercial speech, which is expression related solely to the economic interests of the speaker/writer and the audience, is given a lesser level of protection, and will not be protected if it is misleading or related to unlawful activity. Defamatory speech, explained below, generally is not entitled to any First Amendment protection."

https://www.wardandsmith.com/articles/in...defamation

[Syne]

What if we exclude Syne's argument of releasing private information to the public to expose people to harassment, and just stick with the legal repercussions, such as defamation, libel, or more serious crimes, e.g., predators?

I have repeatedly said that crimes should be reported to police, rather than vigilante mob justice through doxing.

Self-described pedophile hunters have been warned that they’re setting themselves up for civil suits because the suspects have not been convicted in a court of law, but "Dark Justice" – two men in their 20s who keep their full identities a secret, feel that the disclosure of information is in the public’s best interest.

"The government seem to think that it’s acceptable to leave children at risk by taking money away from the police and organizations that are there to protect children," said Scott. "If you came and spent one day watching what we do, you’d have a heart attack with what we see. The numbers are scary. When we first started doing this, we thought it would be difficult to find these people, but it wasn’t. It was too easy."

According to your own citation, "Their evidence has been used in court and has successfully secured the prosecution of over 115 online groomers..." IOW, they only collected evidence and turned it over to authorities. They didn't publicly dox anyone.

What about Megan’s Law? If you reposted public information, could you be setting yourself up for legal ramifications? Certainly not libel, but what if others harassed or harmed the individual due to the information that they received from you? Perhaps.

Megan's Law is the name for a federal law (and informal name for subsequent state laws) in the United States requiring law enforcement authorities to make information available to the public regarding registered sex offenders.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Megan%27s_Law

Again, it goes through the proper authorities. Do you even bother to comprehend what you refer to?

However, the article at hand is about defamation, and like I said earlier, defamatory speech is not protected under the First Amendment.

"Different types of speech, whether anonymous or not, receive different levels of constitutional protection. Because of its significance in this country's history, political speech is accorded the highest level of protection. Commercial speech, which is expression related solely to the economic interests of the speaker/writer and the audience, is given a lesser level of protection, and will not be protected if it is misleading or related to unlawful activity. Defamatory speech, explained below, generally is not entitled to any First Amendment protection."

https://www.wardandsmith.com/articles/in...defamation

That was true, but only prior to 1964.

The Court reasoned that “erroneous statement is inevitable in free debate” and that punishing critics of public officials for any factual errors would chill speech about matters of public interest. The high court also established what has come to be known as “the actual malice rule.”  This means that public officials suing for libel must prove by clear and convincing evidence that the speaker made the false statement with “actual malice” — defined as “knowledge that it was false or with reckless disregard of whether it was false or not.”
...
Five members of the Court extended the Times v. Sullivan rule in cases involving “public figures.”
...
The Court sided with Gertz on this question and found a difference between public figures and private persons.

The court noted two differences:

1.  Public officials and public figures have greater access to the media in order to counter defamatory statements; and
2.  Public officials and public figures to a certain extent seek out public acclaim and assume the risk of greater public scrutiny.
...
This standard means that a private person does not have to show that a defendant acted with actual malice in order to prevail in a defamation suit. The private plaintiff usually must show simply that the defendant was negligent, or at fault. However, the high court also ruled that private defamation plaintiffs could not recover punitive damages unless they showed evidence of actual malice.
...
A defamation plaintiff must usually establish the following elements to recover:

•     Identification: The plaintiff must show that the publication was “of  and concerning” himself or herself. 
  
•     Publication: The plaintiff must show that the defamatory statements were disseminated to a third party. In slander cases, this generally means that the speaker’s defamatory comments must be heard by a third party.
  
•     Defamatory meaning: The plaintiff must establish that the statements in question were defamatory. For example, the language must do more than simply annoy a person or hurt a person’s feelings. But, one court reasoned that calling an attorney “an ambulance chaser” does have a defamatory meaning, because it essentially is accusing the lawyer of violating the rules of professional conduct, which limit solicitation.
  
•     Falsity: The statements must be false; truth is a defense to a defamation claim. Generally, the plaintiff bears the burden of proof of establishing falsity.
  
•     Statements of fact: The statements in question must be objectively verifiable as false statements of fact. In other words, the statements must be provable as false.
  
•     Damages: The false and defamatory statements must cause actual injury or special damages.
  

https://www.mtsu.edu/first-amendment/art...nd-slander

IOW, SS being a private person, would have to prove she's not a misandrist to win a defamation case. She'd also have to prove there was "actual malice" and "injury or special damages" to recover punitive damages. "the language must do more than simply annoy a person or hurt a person’s feelings"

[confused2]

As it happens Stryder is (locally) the one in the firing line so it is important that no harm can come to Stryder. Historically trolls vanish without trace. There is a possibility of a Syne-troll claiming this violates their right to free speech. In the UK I don't think we have a right to free speech so that's not a problem. If it isn't already in the T&C's maybe add that the moderator reserves the right to remove any or all content without explanation or right of appeal.

If the user is unwilling to take down the [defamatory] content, or the complainant wants to take further action, the company asks a user for their consent to release their personal details. If the user does not consent to their details being released, a court order can be made requiring the company to release them — allowing the complainant to pursue defamation action.

The first step is a 'take down' request - on many sites this would need a moderator to allow or enforce an out-of-time edit - either deleting the offending post or enabling the offender to edit the post to remove the offending text. The next step comes when an offender doesn't edit and/or give an acceptable apology - the offender has the option of standing by their word and agreeing to be personally identifiable. To end the scourge of anonymous defamation the victim then has the right to ask the site to identify the offender. If push comes to shove then Stryder falls back on having removed the offending post and that is the end of the story.

[Syne]

You do know that calling someone a "troll" is just as defamatory as anything else, right? Not that I'd ever whine about it, but something to keep in mind while you're hypocritically crowing about defamation.

[confused2]

After Syne's recent post It does occur to me that a person pursuing a case is automatically making themselves personally identifiable to the offender - that may even be the offenders intent.

[Syne]

That's some impressive paranoia.

[confused2]

That's some impressive paranoia.

That didn't take long. Trolling. Exhibit A. [humour intended]

[Syne]

My mistake. Not paranoia. Just a troll projecting. Got it.

[confused2]

This is Stryder's website. The best way forward would seem to be that I neither read nor (obviously) respond to anything you post.
Is that what you want?
Yes or no will suffice.