Hitchens wrote: » Senators want to criminalise offending people online – and they’re dangerously misguidedhttp://jrnl.ie/2208065 Seems like Ms Eames wants to fix the internetty wiffy thingy :pac:
BoJack Horseman wrote: » When children take their own life from online abuse & harassment something has to change. ......
BoJack Horseman wrote: When children take their own life from online abuse & harassment something has to change.
gctest50 wrote: yip stop using the internet unsupervised
sup_dude wrote: » There's a difference between bullying and being offensive.
BoJack Horseman wrote: » When children take their own life from online abuse & harassment something has to change. It should be noted that while physical harassment is illegal, there is f*ck all legislation to inhibit it online.
Any person who, without lawful authority or reasonable excuse, by any means including by use of the telephone, harasses another by persistently following, watching, pestering, besetting or communicating with him or her, shall be guilty of an offence. (2) For the purposes of this section a person harasses another where— (a) he or she, by his or her acts intentionally or recklessly, seriously interferes with the other's peace and privacy or causes alarm, distress or harm to the other, and (b) his or her acts are such that a reasonable person would realise that the acts would seriously interfere with the other's peace and privacy or cause alarm, distress or harm to the other.
(2) For the purposes of this section an electronic communication shall be considered harmful where it – (a) incites or encourages another to commit suicide; or(b) incites or encourages another to cause serious harm to themselves; or(c) includes explicit content of the other; and it intentionally or recklessly causes alarm, distress or harm to the other.
Malicious Electronic Communications 4. – (1) A person who, without lawful excuse, persistently shares malicious electronic communications regarding another shall be guilty of an offence. (2) For the purposes of this section an electronic communication shall be considered malicious where it intentionally or recklessly causes alarm, distress or harm to the other.
gctest50 wrote: » yip stop using the internet unsupervised
Akrasia wrote: » We already have laws that deal with harrassment and abusive behaviour It's the non fatal offences against the person act 1997 We already have a law to prevent online bullying and targetting of individuals by individuals. The proposals by Eames would be the end of free speech on the internet for irish people.
BoJack Horseman wrote: » Tell that to a 17/18 year old! Truth is folks, online abuse can proceed unimpeded by existing law. Consider the emotional damage inflicted on people of any age by online harassment. Blaming the victim for being harassed is rank stupidity.
Samaris wrote: » I've just read through the bill itself, and while one part I can get behind, the other is trickier, and far looser in its interpretation. OK, that's pretty clear, and there have been far too many cases of lowlifes ganging up on someone, including teenagers and younger, and telling them over and over that they're worthless and should kill themselves, etc. Revenge porn is another disgusting internet activity that I can't object to being criminalised. Those two points are actually, in my opinion, reasonable. They're disgusting and cowardly acts that have been made far easier by the internet and I don't think are specifically covered under any other act. That's the awkward point. Alright, it's a bit hemmed in by "without lawful excuse", which apparently excludes the case such as that of Mairia Cahill, etc. But it does seem far too open. There is also the question of how one polices the internet like that? We're talking across borders and across different jurisdictions. I get the point of it, but I think they'd do better just keeping it to the first part, which deals with very specific (and sadly common) methods of bullying on the internet. The latter is rather like having the blasphemy law. It'd be a bugger to enforce, and it's waay too open to interpretation however anyone likes. Edit: Good point there, Akrasia. That does actually cover the latter part anyway, and it is rather better phrased for interpretation by a court.
darkpagandeath wrote: » Exactly it's nothing to do with "save the children" how long till an opinion piece against the government is deemed offensive. People will be very foolish thinking the Irish Government would not be all over free speech like a rash. The Irony is they want all the big tech companies here, Do they not see how stupid they are looking. Is the Government becoming the Catholic church mark 2 ?
galljga1 wrote: » How is anonymity tackled particularly when the host company is outside this jurisdiction? The laws we currently have in place are probably sufficient to deal with cyber bullying if the perpetrator is known but if we cannot force a company to disclose the perpetrators, they are a bit pointless.
Samaris wrote: » No idea! Really, any laws that govern the internet have to be introduced in a bloc of countries at once, whether it be the EU or the US for the English-speaking part of the internet. A tiny little place like Ireland with a tiny Internet "footprint" introducing laws is a bit like standing on a beach and threatening the sea with a small stick. There -are- cases where it's a bit more cut and dried, Facebook for instance. So it may have a limited application.
galljga1 wrote: » That is where I do not see the need for new laws of this nature. For "non-anonymous" sites, the persons involved are known so steps can be taken to sort things out. Why do we need new laws? If someone is slinging crap behind some anonymous userid on a non moderated site, existing and proposed laws are useless.Should we introduce laws to govern the sites themselves and block them from this jurisdiction for breaching our laws? I have mixed views on this.
Phoebas wrote: » This legislation doesn't provide for any additional powers around that and I can't see us introducing any, given that we host a lot of Europe's social media data, so there would be wide implications. As Samaria says, much of this isn't really anonymous at all. A lot of stuff that is posted anonymously can still be investigated. For example, I'd say it would be possible to figure out the identity of many boards posters who have been around for any length of time.
galljga1 wrote: » Agreed. I have no problem with open or moderated sites and have been subject to moderation during my learning curve on this site. It is the out of jurisdiction, anonymous, non moderated sites which I would like to see governed by new legislation which would allow the authorities identify users in certain circumstances.... or would I? As you said, the fact that we are hosting a large part of Europe's social media data would present challenges if we were to introduce legislation of this nature.
darkpagandeath wrote: » How would you govern sites outside this jurisdiction ? Block is all you can do.
![Photo of [Deleted User]](https://w4.vanillicon.com/v2/4c2f272c464d99a9eee64a80fbe71a0c.svg)
