SoylentNews is people
SoylentNews
posted by
martyb
on Wednesday April 17 2019, @05:49AM
from the waiting-until-they-try-to-legislate-"abhorent"-text dept.
from the waiting-until-they-try-to-legislate-"abhorent"-text dept.
Australia has rammed through another law requiring “abhorrent” video, audio or still images to be removed within an hour. This will apply to content providers both in and out of Australia as long as the content is available to Australians. Individuals and companies face jail time and/or huge fines if the content is not removed "within a reasonable time". If the content is found to be hosted in Australia then the Australian government must be alerted. This is yet another knee jerk reaction to the NZ shootings which were streamed live online.
Who is paying for someone to be awake at 3am to curate and remove this stuff?
This discussion has been archived.
No new comments can be posted.
Australia Passes Law Requiring Social Media to Remove Content Within one Hour
|
Log In/Create an Account
| Top
| 114 comments
| Search Discussion
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
Confess your sins to the Lord and you will be forgiven;
confess them to man and you will be laughed at.
-- Josh Billings
(Score: 2, Interesting) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday April 17 2019, @06:40AM (19 children)
This is exactly the point of this law.
Youtube and FB can, you can't.
The other point is, define abhorrent.
"we the white Australian are being boycotted and replaced by Muslim immigrants" can easily pass for abhorrent on two counts, white supremacism and religious hate. Therefore censored. But, what if it's the truth?
(Score: 1, Touché) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday April 17 2019, @06:50AM (1 child)
"we the white Australian are being ..." what???.... boycotted? What the hell does that even mean?
But, what if it doesn't?
(Score: 1) by sorokin on Wednesday April 17 2019, @07:11AM
For most information we don't know if it is correct or not. That's the point.
> But, what if it doesn't?
Should be ban publication of all information that can potentially be incorrect? Or should we perhaps introduce a special agency (may I suggest to call it Ministry of Truth?) that decides what is true and what is not?
(Score: 4, Interesting) by janrinok on Wednesday April 17 2019, @06:55AM (13 children)
And that is the reason for the courts, and why the actual law does not specify a timescale. What might be deemed a 'reasonable' timescale for Youtube or FB could be very different from that expected of a small or individual's website.
If companies are making huge amounts of money running their site then they should be able to afford better protection measures than a private individual who is running a site for the fun of it. The latter is not excused compliance, but I also don't believe that a court would expect him to provide a 24/7 response time for such requests.
As I have pointed out elsewhere - the 1 hour time being quoted is entirely speculative on the part of the news source and based on a comment by the Attorney General who was referring to FB specifically. The is no specific timescale in the new law and it will be for the courts to decide what is 'reasonable' and 'expeditious' in each case.
(Score: 4, Funny) by Phoenix666 on Wednesday April 17 2019, @10:45AM (1 child)
Hmm, yes, except Australia only has kangaroo courts.
Washington DC delenda est.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday April 17 2019, @01:20PM
Nah, mate, only paddocks, courts are high maintenance.
(Score: 1) by khallow on Wednesday April 17 2019, @01:52PM (7 children)
So why isn't "never" considered an appropriate timescale? I think this is particularly vile in light of freedom of speech. Even if the law somehow never gets abused directly, it still mandates that every content provider of this sort have censorship apparatus in place that can be invoked by another party very quickly.
(Score: 4, Insightful) by janrinok on Wednesday April 17 2019, @02:10PM (6 children)
The courts might decide that 'Never' is appropriate sometimes. You are making assumptions.
And I suspect that you are an American? Your views on freedom of speech are not shared by other countries, and your laws regarding freedom of speech are not applicable in other countries. And while we are discussing your freedom of speech, what about Assange? An Australian who is accussed of committing a crime outside of the USA. but the US does not support his right to speak of things that have embarrassed the US Govt, They seem determined to enforce US 'justice' to everyone no matter who or where, even those to whom US laws do not apply. The information was provided by Manning, who has been punished. That is a strange view of freedom of speech, in my view. If Assange had been a Russian living in Russia, would the US still be trying to extradite him with any expectation of success?
(Score: 1) by khallow on Wednesday April 17 2019, @02:54PM (1 child)
"May". That's not in the law now (I doubt the enforcers will agree that "never" is a reasonable period of time).
(Score: 2) by janrinok on Wednesday April 17 2019, @06:58PM
(Score: 1) by khallow on Wednesday April 17 2019, @05:54PM (3 children)
Flat Earthers have views on the shape of the Earth which is not shared by others too.
At some point, you have to decide what's important to you, laws or speaking your mind without concern that some bureaucrat or personal enemy will find a way to punish you for that and/or hide your speech. Here, freedom of speech is an issue no matter what the rules of the land are. The law supposedly targets "abhorrent" content. But what happens down the road when your criticism of a government policy becomes the abhorrent content? What happens when the forum you wrote your criticism decides to excise your inconvenient words using the excuse that it violates their terms of service (even though you aren't)?
If you live in a society that you would like to become and stay a democracy, then you need really broad freedom of speech even if the "viewpoint" is otherwise.
(Score: 2) by janrinok on Wednesday April 17 2019, @07:07PM (2 children)
(Score: 1) by khallow on Wednesday April 17 2019, @07:22PM (1 child)
Those nations aren't Australia. Australia has passed this law, indicating intent to change laws on free speech. Further, it's worse than most such laws because it mandates the creation of censorship apparatus which can then be reused - we already have problems with that. This sort of thing does have the power in conjunction with other underminings to collapse democracy.
Even North Korea is on that spectrum. It permits some forms of speech after all. It's not a valuable observation to make.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday April 18 2019, @12:50AM
You are Australian?
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday April 17 2019, @06:50PM (1 child)
" protection measures"
protection from what, you authoritarian fuck? freedom of speech?
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday April 18 2019, @07:16AM
Protection against reckless speech, you dimwit.
Even the mighty US has such protection, see "shouting fire in a crowded theater just for lulz".
Other countries may consider reckless as they see fit to their conditions.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday April 18 2019, @12:47AM
How long will a small site last after being taken to court repeatedly?
(Score: -1, Redundant) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday April 17 2019, @08:58AM (1 child)
Emphasis mine:
It is true that that statement is supremacism and religious hate. What's your point?
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday April 17 2019, @06:53PM
because believing you have the right to exist is supremacy. also, not wanting muzrats around is just good common sense.
(Score: -1, Redundant) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday April 17 2019, @02:36PM
It isn't, aaaand you're a racist.