Senator Lorraine Higgins wants to introduce a bill to jail trolls!

Cienciano · 21-07-2015 11:25pm

SpaceTime wrote: »

And she's perfectly entitled to take those to the Gardai.

Death threats are illegal. The other comment could certainly constitute harassment or something.

All she's doing is proving that her bill isn't necessary as the Gardai will take that kind of threat seriously.

I'd say if I went into Pearse Street Garda station to tell them I have received a death threat over the internet, they'd type it up on their invisible typewriter.

SpaceTime · 21-07-2015 11:27pm

Cienciano wrote: »

I'd say if I went into Pearse Street Garda station to tell them I have received a death threat over the internet, they'd type it up on their invisible typewriter.

So that's what PULSE is....

Explains a lot!

buried · 21-07-2015 11:30pm

Cienciano wrote: »

I'd say if I went into Pearse Street Garda station to tell them I have received a death threat over the internet, they'd type it up on their invisible typewriter.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=v7acD4q0lp0

Cienciano · 21-07-2015 11:38pm

SpaceTime wrote: »

So that's what PULSE is....

Explains a lot!

Imagine threats of rape. Every xbox live user under the age of 16 would be charged

conorh91 · 21-07-2015 11:49pm

darkpagandeath wrote: »

Name a site you cannot report abusive activity that's not anonymous ?

What's that got to do with anything?

Just because a report function exists on a site, it does not follow that any action will be taken. In any event, there's no obligation on the ISP to take any action at present, because there is a gap in the law.

A teenager can go on twitter (or some similar platform) and tweet a bullying message exhorting another teenager to self-harm, even showing videos of self-harm. This can be retweeted by most of the teenagers in a particular school (and elsewhere), yet taken alone, it is not harassment in our law.

Because our law doesn't know what retweeting is. It doesn't understand what 'sharing' is. It was written before most people had the internet.

Do you think that's clever?

darkpagandeath · 22-07-2015 1:12am

conorh91 wrote: »

What's that got to do with anything?

Just because a report function exists on a site, it does not follow that any action will be taken. In any event, there's no obligation on the ISP to take any action at present, because there is a gap in the law.

A teenager can go on twitter (or some similar platform) and tweet a bullying message exhorting another teenager to self-harm, even showing videos of self-harm. This can be retweeted by most of the teenagers in a particular school (and elsewhere), yet taken alone, it is not harassment in our law.

Because our law doesn't know what retweeting is. It doesn't understand what 'sharing' is. It was written before most people had the internet.

Do you think that's clever?

Laws already cover this what laws would one like to deal with this. We have laws already. One seems to want everyone in the chain going to jail.

Little CuChulainn · 22-07-2015 6:27pm

darkpagandeath wrote: »

Laws already cover this what laws would one like to deal with this. We have laws already. One seems to want everyone in the chain going to jail.

The current laws are not sufficient. They are not suitable for online media. You have a situation were a person can be charged under the Telecoms Act and fined a few pounds for a single message are where they can be indicted for harassment and risk jail time. The wording of the current laws is also too vague when it comes to the complexity of online communication. The law in this area needs to be fixed. I get that people are afraid that they might get in trouble for calling a politician an asshole online where they feel invulnerable but that's just a ridiculous reason to not introduce new laws.

mikom · 22-07-2015 6:43pm

I'll just leave this here......... http://www.thejournal.ie/readme/lorraine-higgins-bill-2229861-Jul2015/

Words on the issue from Tom Murphy, a founder of Boards.ie, this site which was recently described in the Irish parliament as a “legal subversion of the state”.

conorh91 · 22-07-2015 7:17pm

darkpagandeath wrote: »

Laws already cover this what laws would one like to deal with this. We have laws already.

I have no clue what you're trying to say.

This law effectively extends the law on harassment to apply to social media activities, and it strengthens the law regarding cajoling someone to kill or harm themselves.

mikom wrote: »

I'll just leave this here......... http://www.thejournal.ie/readme/lorraine-higgins-bill-2229861-Jul2015/

Words on the issue from Tom Murphy, a founder of Boards.ie, this site which was recently described in the Irish parliament as a “legal subversion of the state”.

Difficult to know where to begin on how misinformed that article is. On a scale of 1 to 10 of misinformation, it's a 7.

darkpagandeath · 22-07-2015 7:35pm

Little CuChulainn wrote: »

The current laws are not sufficient. They are not suitable for online media. You have a situation were a person can be charged under the Telecoms Act and fined a few pounds for a single message are where they can be indicted for harassment and risk jail time. The wording of the current laws is also too vague when it comes to the complexity of online communication. The law in this area needs to be fixed. I get that people are afraid that they might get in trouble for calling a politician an asshole online where they feel invulnerable but that's just a ridiculous reason to not introduce new laws.

Define Harassment ? There is only a problem on Anonymous sites. I'm not worried about calling a Politician an ass, I'm worried them making laws making it Harassment/threatened. FB,Twitter all social media sites have report buttons and procedures for abuse.

darkpagandeath · 22-07-2015 7:40pm

conorh91 wrote: »

I have no clue what you're trying to say.

This law effectively extends the law on harassment to apply to social media activities, and it strengthens the law regarding cajoling someone to kill or harm themselves.

Difficult to know where to begin on how misinformed that article is. On a scale of 1 to 10 of misinformation, it's a 7.

I hardly think a person who cry's out Raped on Facebook understands what the laws she is proposing will do. Same with the same person going on about naked pictures are illegal. Would you take the assessment of someone 17 years in the business or someone who is not even in the industry.

darkpagandeath · 22-07-2015 7:42pm

Are we forgetting the same crowed wanting to put you on a list to be able to watch porn. Because some people are unable to supervise their children.

conorh91 · 22-07-2015 7:46pm

darkpagandeath wrote: »

I hardly think a person who cry's out Raped on Facebook understands what the laws she is proposing will do.

You think Lorraine Higgins is Fidelma Healy Eames? What??

darkpagandeath wrote: »

Are we forgetting the same crowed wanting to put you on a list to be able to watch porn.

No idea who you're referring to. Don't worry, your porn is safe. This Bill is about bullying and inciting teenagers to kill themselves.

mikom · 22-07-2015 7:51pm

darkpagandeath wrote: »

Define Harassment ? There is only a problem on Anonymous sites.

The irony is that the threat that Higgins received was from an 'email' that was generated from a form on her own website using a fake e-mail address.
This was mentioned in her Newstalk interview.
So she actually facilitated the anonymous message.
You could not make it up

darkpagandeath · 22-07-2015 7:52pm

conorh91 wrote: »

You think Lorraine Higgins is Fidelma Healy Eames? What??

No idea who you're referring to. Don't worry, your porn is safe. This Bill is about bullying and inciting teenagers to kill themselves.

Yeah sorry I get them two confused they are as bad as each other, it's hard not to.

What site are they referring to ?

conorh91 · 22-07-2015 10:26pm

mikom wrote: »

The irony is that the threat that Higgins received was from an 'email' that was generated from a form on her own website using a fake e-mail address.

That doesn't meet any definition of irony. It is no more ironic than receiving a death-threat through your front-door postbox.

Schadenfreudia · 22-07-2015 10:31pm

conorh91 wrote: »

That doesn't meet any definition of irony. It is no more ironic than receiving a death-threat through your front-door postbox.

She needs to get a life! (subtle irony there, eh?)

In the old days a "troll" was someone who posted provocative comments to wind people up - it appears now a "troll" is someone who issues death threats.

Trolls have definitely changed their feeding habits

smoking_kills · 22-07-2015 10:37pm

darkpagandeath wrote: »

Define Harassment ? There is only a problem on Anonymous sites. I'm not worried about calling a Politician an ass, I'm worried them making laws making it Harassment/threatened. FB,Twitter all social media sites have report buttons and procedures for abuse.

Have you seen this?

http://news.nationalpost.com/full-comment/christie-blatchford-ruling-in-twitter-harassment-trial-could-have-enormous-fallout-for-free-speech

Disagreeing with Feminists in Canada could lead to 6 months in jail.

Schadenfreudia · 22-07-2015 10:47pm

smoking_kills wrote: »

Have you seen this?

http://news.nationalpost.com/full-comment/christie-blatchford-ruling-in-twitter-harassment-trial-could-have-enormous-fallout-for-free-speech

Disagreeing with Feminists in Canada could lead to 6 months in jail.

Bizarre - but Canada is not a great beacon of free speech under its current Regime. It wants to criminalise advocates of boycotting Israel for settlement building, for example.

And France has criminalised denial of the Armenian genocide. And so on, holocaust denial is a crime in several EU countries.

And lest we forget how easily the RoI learned to love Section 31 - we are not exactly sturdy advocates of freedom ourselves.

At this rate we'll soon look at Putin's Russia as a beacon of free speech.

expectationlost · 23-07-2015 12:18am

darkpagandeath wrote: »

I hardly think a person who cry's out Raped on Facebook understands what the laws she is proposing will do.

FHE described fraping almost exactly right

expectationlost · 23-07-2015 12:19am

mikom wrote: »

The irony is that the threat that Higgins received was from an 'email' that was generated from a form on her own website using a fake e-mail address.
This was mentioned in her Newstalk interview.
So she actually facilitated the anonymous message.
You could not make it up

but is it really anonymous?

My name is URL · 23-07-2015 6:49pm

Only caught the end of it but Devore was on the Right Hook doing an interview about this at around 5:30 this evening for anyone interested in listening back.

Sounded like he had to hold back the laughter when mentioning that Higgins is a trained barrister after demolishing her whole argument for introducing it.

Banjo String · 23-07-2015 7:16pm

Is Lorraine going to contest Galway east again in the next GE?

mikom · 23-07-2015 7:28pm

Banjo String wrote: »

Is Lorraine going to contest Galway east again in the next GE?

Even though she had the labour party machine behind her Ming out-polled her in her home-town of Athenry for the 2014 Euro-elections.
Her hometown full of relations, school mates etc.

If you can't top the poll in your hometown.........

Banjo String · 23-07-2015 7:50pm

mikom wrote: »

Even though she had the labour party machine behind her Ming out-polled her in her home-town of Athenry for the 2014 Euro-elections.
Her hometown full of relations, school mates etc.

If you can't top the poll in your hometown.........

Lie low, and watch the small free birds fly!

Muahahaha · 23-07-2015 11:12pm

I haven't seen this bill designed to protect the childer but it struck me today how the main section of society who bully children online are children themselves. Is she planning on criminalising children or something?

Yellowblackbird · 23-07-2015 11:16pm

Muahahaha wrote: »

Is she planning on criminalising children or something?

If she is then I think that could be construed as harassment. Or bullying.

DeVore · 24-07-2015 10:39am

I wrote about it here:
http://www.thejournal.ie/readme/lorraine-higgins-bill-2229861-Jul2015/

The bill comes in two parts, the Harmful and the Malicious sections.

The "Harmful" part covers three things: inciting someone to kill themselves, to harm themselves and "revenge porn". Those seem like things we should protect people from. Which is why we already protect people from them in the Non-Fatal Offences Against The Person act of 1997.

The "Malicious" part is where we basically lose containment and take a free ride down to Bonkerstown. You can read about my analysis of it in that Journal piece.

Oh and I missed something... right at the end of the bill you can read the Ancillary Orders. You can read if for yourself as its pretty clear English.

Basically it says that even if you are FOUND INNOCENT, you can *still* be forced to delete, amend and/or apologise for the message... plus you can be barred from going anywhere near the plaintiff. Even if you are found innocent.

One further interesting point... there is no "out" clause for things that might be "alarming distressing or harmful" but ARE ACTUALLY TRUE. So, truth is no defense against this law.

Barking. Proper woof-woof stuff.

Little CuChulainn · 24-07-2015 11:10am

DeVore wrote: »

The "Harmful" part covers three things: inciting someone to kill themselves, to harm themselves and "revenge porn". Those seem like things we should protect people from. Which is why we already protect people from them in the Non-Fatal Offences Against The Person act of 1997.

To which sections of that act are you referring to? If I were to send a single message to my ex stating that I had put our sex tape online and that she looks so bad in it she should kill herself, what section of the non-fatal offences act would I be breaching, assuming I had in fact put up the tape?

SpaceTime · 24-07-2015 11:21am

If this bill were ever to pass, we would be looking at going way down the ranks of any notions of having freedom of speech.

There's a bit of a populist band waggon of politicians, most of whom don't really seem to understand the internet or the implications of what they're proposing, jumping towards censorship.

Apart from the obvious and fundamental human rights and freedom of expression issues it would create, it also has a lot of potential to do serious economic and reputational damage to Ireland.

I, as much as any normal person, abhor cyber bullying, but this is taking a nuclear sledge hammer to crack a nut when we already have pretty effective nut crackers in the drawer to start with.

I really do not think the proposers of this bill understand that it could actually undermine a hell of a lot people's livelihoods as they fundamentally do not understand what the problem is, nor do they understand just how dependent on social media and digital media the Irish economy is in 2015.

If you start being the country that is most innovative with online censorship, it's a road to economic downturns and sliding back into the depression again.

On top of that, you can't really legislate cyber bullying out of existence anymore than you can legislate school yard bullying to go away. You have to provide people with the tools to deal with it and that really means education and also helping the Gardai to become more aware of what legislation is already there in terms of protecting people from online or offline harassment, stalking, blackmail etc etc. when they report it.

This is a well intentioned, but very dangerously misconceived piece of proposed legislation.

Senator Lorraine Higgins wants to introduce a bill to jail trolls!

Comments