Australian PM proposes defamation laws forcing social platforms to unmask trolls

[C C]

Anonymity may no longer be an option for online trolls in Australia (excerpts): Australian Prime Minister Scott Morrison is introducing new defamation laws that would force online platforms to reveal the identities of trolls, or else pay the price of defamation. As ABC News Australia explains, the laws would hold social platforms, like Facebook or Twitter, accountable for defamatory comments made against users. [...] “The online world should not be a wild west where bots and bigots and trolls and others are anonymously going around and can harm people,” Morrison said during a press conference... (MORE - missing details)
- - - - - -

Anti-troll laws could force social media companies to give out names and contact details (excerpts): Prime Minister Scott Morrison said he wanted to close the gap between real life and discourse online. "The rules that exist in the real world must exist in the digital and online world," he said.

Under the proposal, social media companies will be required to create a complaints process for people who feel they have been defamed online. The complaints process will allow people to ask that material be taken down by a user if they feel it is defamatory.

If the user is unwilling to take down the 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.

Mr Morrison said the government would be happy to intervene in court and take on social media companies trying to avoid releasing personal details.

[...] Attorney-General Michaelia Cash said social media companies should carry responsibility for material published on their platform. "Social media services need to step up, and they need to understand that they have a responsibility in this regard," she said. "And that is why this important step providing clarity to all Australians, but in particular, to social media companies — you will be deemed the publisher."

[...] Federal Opposition Leader Anthony Albanese said Labor would wait to see the detail of the new laws before giving a firm position either way on them. ... But he is questioning how easily the laws might be avoided — as trolls simply close their Australian account, and use a foreign IP-address to re-open it.

Doing so would potentially avoid the scope of the laws, if they are only applied to accounts registered in Australia... (MORE - missing details)

[Syne]

Social media defamation is only a problem if amplified by news media. Otherwise it's just random nobodies no one should pay any heed to. And when social media users are already being censored for wrong-think and sharing legit news articles (Hunter's laptop), giving big tech more reasons to throttle voices is working in the exactly wrong direction...unless you're a leftist authoritarian. You know, aside from exacerbating frivolous lawsuits.

[stryder]

Social media defamation is only a problem if amplified by news media. Otherwise it's just random nobodies no one should pay any heed to. And when social media users are already being censored for wrong-think and sharing legit news articles (Hunter's laptop), giving big tech more reasons to throttle voices is working in the exactly wrong direction...unless you're a leftist authoritarian. You know, aside from exacerbating frivolous lawsuits.

I think the main problem that people tend to neglect is if you say something you have to stand by what you said. If you aren't willing to stand by it (e.g. Hide your identity or pretend it was never said) then as you say it doesn't mean anything and you should be promptly ignored.

The counter arguement to that though is in regards to authoritarian and fascist governments that might target you for saying specific things. (You might have an opinion that they don't want you spreading to their populous, perhaps you said something about a religious icon they dont like etc) In those instances activists would demand the ability to remain anonymous and the ability to use proxies.

Should it be possible to see the way people have voted? It again has it's pros and cons, but the dilema is the same as if you force people to be at the whim of those that can persecute them.

As for any changes to this site. Not currently.

I do have an idea of a system that can be deployed, it probably wouldn't follow any of the laws they might concoct, but if I was forced to make a change to the site I would go with that plan over anything they concoct. I'm not going to explain it here, it's one of those things currently sitting on a TODO list and loosely planned for a future version of the site. It however would likely require writing a bespoken forum from the ground up.

[Syne]

I think the main problem that people tend to neglect is if you say something you have to stand by what you said.  If you aren't willing to stand by it (e.g. Hide your identity or pretend it was never said) then as you say it doesn't mean anything and you should be promptly ignored.

The counter arguement to that though is in regards to authoritarian and fascist governments that might target you for saying specific things.  (You might have an opinion that they don't want you spreading to their populous, perhaps you said something about a religious icon they dont like etc)  In those instances activists would demand the ability to remain anonymous and the ability to use proxies.

Should it be possible to see the way people have voted?  It again has it's pros and cons, but the dilema is the same as if you force people to be at the whim of those that can persecute them.

As for any changes to this site.  Not currently.

I do have an idea of a system that can be deployed, it probably wouldn't follow any of the laws they might concoct, but if I was forced to make a change to the site I would go with that plan over anything they concoct.  I'm not going to explain it here, it's one of those things currently sitting on a TODO list and loosely planned for a future version of the site.  It however would likely require writing a bespoken forum from the ground up.

Free speech should allow the average citizen the freedom to express themselves without a significant risk/fear of losing their job or being sued, outside threats of death, terrorism, etc.. Exposing a person's vote could easily be considered voter intimidation, and doxing a person intimidating their exercise of their freedom of speech.

If this, or any other, site ever tries to leverage the ability to dox me, I'm out. I stand by everything I say, but I will not allow a minority leftist outrage mob to lynch me. I've already have SS try and fail to cyber-stalk me. You can't tell me that has anything but malicious motives.

[Zinjanthropos]

Would it change politics? Republicans & Democrats being nice to each other? If you can trash talk live in front of a crowd then what’s the difference if on SM?

[Secular Sanity]

If this, or any other, site ever tries to leverage the ability to dox me, I'm out. I stand by everything I say, but I will not allow a minority leftist outrage mob to lynch me. I've already have SS try and fail to cyber-stalk me. You can't tell me that has anything but malicious motives.

Did I release your private information? Nope! Have I stalked or harassed you? Nope!

No harm, no foul.

Nice to see that you’re finally admitting that you’re a troll though.

[Syne]

If this, or any other, site ever tries to leverage the ability to dox me, I'm out. I stand by everything I say, but I will not allow a minority leftist outrage mob to lynch me. I've already have SS try and fail to cyber-stalk me. You can't tell me that has anything but malicious motives.

Did I release your private information? Nope! Have I stalked or harassed you? Nope!

No harm, no foul.

Nice to see that you’re finally admitting that you’re a troll though.

Apparently SS doesn't understand simple English, like "and fail." IOW, she never had any of my private information. And we can only imagine what she'd have done if she did. You know, like make some effort to support her accusations against me.


What were they again, deary? I'm a troll because I don't agree with you? 9_9

[Secular Sanity]

Apparently SS doesn't understand simple English, like "and fail." IOW, she never had any of my private information. And we can only imagine what she'd have done if she did. You know, like make some effort to support her accusations against me.

Did I fail? Nope!

I'm highly curious but highly ethical.

You might want to keep this is mind when you're out trolling though.

The courts have ruled time and time again that the ability to anonymously distribute ideas goes to the core of free speech, but generally, defamatory speech is not entitled to any First Amendment protection. I think that plaintiffs must prove that a libelous statement is in fact libelous before the identity of the speaker is revealed, but if it can be proved, they can subpoena a website owner to disclose their identity.

[Syne]

Apparently SS doesn't understand simple English, like "and fail." IOW, she never had any of my private information. And we can only imagine what she'd have done if she did. You know, like make some effort to support her accusations against me.

Did I fail? Nope!

You've certainly never told me any of my personal information. Only that you were trying to dig some up.

I'm highly curious but highly ethical.

That's an obvious lie, as you wouldn't continue to make unsupported accusations if you were the least bit ethical.

You might want to keep this is mind when you're out trolling.

Unlike you, I've never trolled anyone. I can't help it if you can't fathom that someone with my opinions could be 100% earnest and genuine. That's just narrow-mindedness on your part.

The courts have ruled time and time again that the ability to anonymously distribute ideas goes to the core of free speech, but generally, defamatory speech is not entitled to any First Amendment protection. I think that plaintiffs must prove that a libelous statement is in fact libelous before the identity of the speaker is revealed, but if can be proved, they can subpoena a website owner to disclose their identity.

In the US, defamation is very hard to prove in court.

To prove prima facie defamation, a plaintiff must show four things: 1) a false statement purporting to be fact; 2) publication or communication of that statement to a third person; 3) fault amounting to at least negligence; and 4) damages, or some harm caused to the person or entity who is the subject of the statement.
https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/defamation

IOW, opinion is not defamation. This is why CNN and WP settled the defamation suits from Sandmann (and he still has ongoing suits), and why Rittenhouse is likely to succeed in any defamation suits. Media had passed lies as fact, knowing or negligent of the damage done to the individuals.


I've never told lies about you. I have expressed my opinions. And nothing I've said about you or anyone else can be misconstrued as knowingly or negligently causing damage...aside from hurting your widdle feelings, which isn't covered by defamation.

[Secular Sanity]

I've never told lies about you. I have expressed my opinions. And nothing I've said about you or anyone else can be misconstrued as knowingly or negligently causing damage...aside from hurting your widdle feelings, which isn't covered by defamation.

You’re conflating free speech and opinion with accusing someone of being something that they’re not.