SoylentNews is people
SoylentNews is powered by your submissions, so send in your scoop. Only 18 submissions in the queue.
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This discussion has been archived.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.
You are a fluke of the universe; you have no right to be here.
(Score: 1, Disagree) by khallow on Wednesday April 17 2019, @06:09PM (5 children)
No, the people making the regulatory procedures will do that - the Attorney General's people in other words. The courts will have to decide - for the cases which actually make their way to the courts - whether those regulations meet the criteria of the law. If the AG is saying such things, it's a good sign that the regulation will be that way.
(Score: 2) by janrinok on Thursday April 18 2019, @07:52AM (4 children)
(Score: 1) by khallow on Thursday April 18 2019, @01:35PM (3 children)
You can disagree all you want. It's simply not true. Courts rule only on matters that reach the courts. Regulators are the ones applying the law circularly because they're the regulators. Even when courts make rulings, it'll be the regulators applying those rulings to the regulations.
(Score: 2) by janrinok on Thursday April 18 2019, @01:49PM (2 children)
(Score: 1) by khallow on Thursday April 18 2019, @02:08PM (1 child)
Sorry, again, but that's not true. There are two tests of the matter to show this. First, while courts decide what is proper, that is interpretation not application in the States. I doubt Australian lingo deviates so much that they have such different meanings for those terms. The thing is the Attorney-General's department also can decide what is proper - their opinion can be overruled by the courts, but they still engage in the practice. It's no difference to the end user whether the regulatory point in question came from the courts or AG, unless they plan to contest it in the courts. Otherwise the costs of compliance and not are the same no matter who shaped the regulation.
And when these things make it to the courts, the AG's office will be there to defend their interpretation of the law.
Second, enforcement of the regulation is strictly left to the AG. Courts won't be sending you pulldown orders or verifying that your censorship procedures are reasonably timely.
So my view remains unchanged. The AG engages in the same activities as the court, they just have lower precedent. So by that metric they are applying the law just as well. But then we come to the real point, namely, that applying law is actually the generation and enforcement of regulation, the domain of the AG department.
(Score: 1) by khallow on Thursday April 18 2019, @02:11PM