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

DeVore · 24-07-2015 11:45am

Little CuChulainn wrote: »

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?

Revenge porn is the one area where the law could be tightened up. I don't think you would find a judge who DIDNT think that was covered by harassment (section 10 of the non-fatal act) but still, as I said in the piece that intention is laudable the execution is awful.

It also absolutely doesn't justify the "Malicious Communications" part of the bill in any way. That part seems like its being snuck in behind the "wont somebody think of the children!" part.

To clarify, I'm not against the idea of improving our laws and bringing them up to date. I'm very much against doing that in a very haphazard and broad manner.

Tony EH · 24-07-2015 11:45am

How can somebody who is unelected by the people of the country propose a bill to change the laws of a country?

Satriale · 24-07-2015 11:56am

Tony EH wrote: »

How can somebody who is unelected by the people of the country propose a bill to change the laws of a country?

Not only unelected, but the people have actively said "No, Feck Off!" to her a couple of times. When's she gonna take the hint?

SpaceTime · 24-07-2015 12:00pm

Tony EH wrote: »

How can somebody who is unelected by the people of the country propose a bill to change the laws of a country?

Well, after something like 13 proposals they still refuse point blank to reform the Seanad.

For example, the last huge report which was largely driven by Mary O'Rourke, like her or loath her, she did a pretty decent job on this report and pretty much made it her mission while in the Seanad to make it functional.

It was actually pretty comprehensive and would have seen direct Seanad elections if it were implemented, but it's been used as a door stop in Leinster House by the sounds of it.

http://www.oireachtas.ie/documents/committees29thdail/subcomonseanadreform/Report_on_Reform_of_the_Seanad.pdf

We were promised more reform to avoid abolishing the Seanad, and guess what - it was put on the back burner AGAIN.

The Seanad is basically just a slightly democratised version of the House of Lords. The way its election system works is almost an insult to the concept of democracy.

The problem is the status quo suits TDs as it renders the Senate fairly impotent and also ensures they've somewhere to go should they lose their seats in the Dail.

AlanG · 24-07-2015 12:02pm

Tony EH wrote: »

How can somebody who is unelected by the people of the country propose a bill to change the laws of a country?

Because the people of the country recently voted to keep the Senate as part of our legislature. I think it was unfortunate but the majority spoke.

SpaceTime · 24-07-2015 12:04pm

AlanG wrote: »

Because the people of the country recently voted to keep the Senate as part of our legislature. I think it was unfortunate but the majority spoke.

They were promised reform by the people calling for a No vote and there's absolutely no sign of that happening whatsoever.

The worrying bit was we were promised reform of the Dail should the Seanad be abolished and you can be damn sure that wouldn't have happened either. The guillotining of debates and the current standing orders make it impossible to have a proper debate on anything really outside of the committee system.

The Black Oil · 24-07-2015 3:18pm

I emailed her again yesterday. Obviously, I think she is wrongheaded about this whole cyber thing. In fairness, she does at least respond. In a previous mail she replied saying that this legislation was only one component - education and awareness were also needed, which I had already pointed out, in detail. I asked she was going to follow through on the education aspect. This morning, she responded with

I'll meet with the Minister for Education as soon as we resume to see what awareness campaign she can out in place in secondary schools. Feel free to check in with me then.

As linked to in Devore's piece on The Journal, Ciarán McMahon has pointed out the issue of resourcing comes to mind, e.g. the Office for Internet Safety. ICAG's report already made recommendations in respect of education. I think the 2013 Oireachtas report may have said similar, iirc. It's time to stop producing regular reports and attempts at legislation, let's actually get on with what Devore outlined in his interview on Newstalk.

I told her I'd prefer time was spent sorting out a justice system which has at times given out some light sentences for some very serious offences.

In her Irish Times piece yesterday she stated that social media companies have not responded to her correspondence or disclosed figures she sought. She shouldn't be surprised at this, like most private companies, they are pretty tight lipped about discussing anything outside of profits. Interestingly, her column didn't seem to include how many trolls had been abusive to her. I've a feeling she might be overly fixated on a few people who are just nasty tools.

That is why I brought my Harmful and Malicious Electronic Communications Bill 2015 before the Oireachtas. This proposed legislation provides clear sanctions for anyone who, without lawful authority or reasonable excuse, intentionally or recklessly shares a harmful electronic communication designed to incite someone to die by suicide or do serious harm to themselves, or which causes alarm, distress or harm to that person. Such legislation would provide solace to victims and also, crucially, act as a deterrent to would-be abusers.

I have absolutely no faith this will occur.

SpaceTime · 24-07-2015 4:20pm

Politicians need to be careful though as they really inhabit a different world to the rest of us when it comes to being a public figure.

Part of being a senator, is being a public figure and unfortunately that can attract some rather harsh and often nasty communications. I don't like people getting personal with politicians, but it's been an element of the job for as long as there has been politics. People have been caricaturing and making satyrical comment about politicians for as long as there has been politics.

That's a whole other world to cyber bullying and I am concerned that there's a conflation of the two things going on here.

If you're in politics you can expect to get robust criticism and it's just a case of having to roll with the punches in some respects for the sake of democratic, open, debate.

Also, I speak from my own personal work life and I haven't really worked in very seriously public facing jobs, but I have had to deal with my share of trolls and other unhinged people for various reasons over the years and it is not fun.

Actual cyber bullying tends to exist in the space of personal attacks and blackmail of vulnerable people. That kind of thing needs to be dealt with thorough education and existing law.

Most of the scariest personal abuse I've ever had has been either by phone, by post or face to face! I can easily deal with some creep behind a Twitter handle ...

I genuinely think though making some social media experts available to cyber bullying victims would be a lot more useful than all this legislation. Most of it can be dealt with by just talking about it, getting it into perspective and knowing how to handle things online in terms of privacy and security and blocking people.

Things like threats of violence, blackmail, extortion etc can be dealt with through existing legislation.

Where someone's trying to wreck someone's good name online, there's already a lot of recourse to law here in terms of defamation actions.

The reality of this is that people have been trolling since the dawn of telecommunications (and by that I mean the pen and the letter!).

Little CuChulainn · 24-07-2015 5:18pm

DeVore wrote: »

Revenge porn is the one area where the law could be tightened up. I don't think you would find a judge who DIDNT think that was covered by harassment (section 10 of the non-fatal act) but still, as I said in the piece that intention is laudable the execution is awful.

It also absolutely doesn't justify the "Malicious Communications" part of the bill in any way. That part seems like its being snuck in behind the "wont somebody think of the children!" part.

To clarify, I'm not against the idea of improving our laws and bringing them up to date. I'm very much against doing that in a very haphazard and broad manner.

You stated the law covered those three scenarios. You even cited an actual statute. But it does not cover any of those behaviours. Section 10 requires persistent negative behaviour on the part of the offender. The current law does not protect people from the behaviour you claim it does.

DeVore · 24-07-2015 5:30pm

I think repeatedly telling someone to kill themselves would be considered "persistent negative behaviour".

Tell me, why does ANY of this require the second section... the stuff under the "Malicious" heading. Even if we wanted to cover any loophole in the law about revenge porn or suicide-baiting.... NONE of that is covered by the second section and none of it needs the second section.

Can you justify that section of the bill?

Kalman · 24-07-2015 5:33pm

Another nail in the coffin of free speech. :mad:

SpaceTime · 24-07-2015 5:35pm

Kalman wrote: »

Another nail in the coffin of free speech. :mad:

Only an independent Senate bill so far.

Start emailing labour TDs about how you won't be voting for them as a result of this...

Or would telling a TD you're not voting for them now constitute causing offence and upset ?

Honestly between blasphemy laws and this, you'd have to wonder if we've really moved on from 1955 on some things.

Little CuChulainn · 24-07-2015 5:36pm

DeVore wrote: »

I think repeatedly telling someone to kill themselves would be considered "persistent negative behaviour".

Tell me, why does ANY of this require the second section... the stuff under the "Malicious" heading. Even if we wanted to cover any loophole in the law about revenge porn or suicide-baiting.... NONE of that is covered by the second section and none of it needs the second section.

Can you justify that section of the bill?

I have no intention of justifying the Bill. It's a well intentioned but flawed bill, like most bills brought forward by idealistic politicians. My issue is with you using false claims to argue against it. Repeatedly telling someone to kill themselves would be harassment. What about sending one message during a brigade against them? What about catfishing them into a position of trust and then telling them to kill themselves? The law is completely insufficient for online media.

DeVore · 24-07-2015 5:48pm

I said that this bill is not a good solution to that problem. Along with that it introduces a raft of "backdoor" censorship laws.

If you read my piece I actually said I would welcome a bill that clarified these things but I stand by my assertion that the law would already be deemed to cover it in any realistic scenario with the possible exception of revenge porn.

SpaceTime · 24-07-2015 5:57pm

Basically we just need an update to blackmail legislation to specifically cover revenge porn and a few minor modernising tweaks here and there.

Key is actually education of both the public and Gardai.

Also bear in mind you can be cyber bullied from well beyond the reach of the Irish law. Many people participating in online gaming environments or who engage a lot more internationally online will be well aware of that risk.

A lot of it tends to be "piling on" type stuff especially this kind of "photo shaming" type stuff that teens seem to do quite a bit. Those posts could come from anywhere in the world.

From what I've seen of a lot of the most agressive stuff that hits teens, it's basically just virtual school yard bullying taken to extremes online and the bullies can be local or international - the all jump on to give a kick.

Again why education and support is vital!

...

On a related topic, Irish anti stalker laws are very, very poor. Some people I know have had major issues with non-cyber stalkers and the law here was bordering on useless! It's actually an area I would like to see looked at in a lot more detail and not in a hyped up internet only context.

Little CuChulainn · 24-07-2015 6:02pm

DeVore wrote: »

I said that this bill is not a good solution to that problem. Along with that it introduces a raft of "backdoor" censorship laws.

If you read my piece I actually said I would welcome a bill that clarified these things but I stand by my assertion that the law would already be deemed to cover it in any realistic scenario with the possible exception of revenge porn.

So none of the scenarios I brought up are realistic despite the fact they happen, some of them quite often?

Little CuChulainn · 24-07-2015 6:04pm

SpaceTime wrote: »

Basically we just need an update to blackmail legislation to specifically cover revenge porn and a few minor modernising tweaks here and there.

SpaceTime wrote: »

the law here was bordering on useless!

This seems pretty contradictory. If it only needs a few tweaks how can it be useless?

SpaceTime · 24-07-2015 6:07pm

Little CuChulainn wrote: »

This seems pretty contradictory. If it only needs a few tweaks how can it be useless?

Stalking and cyber bullying are two very different things.

This is more about reports of stalking, particularly female on male, not being taken very seriously and very limited ability to get safety / retraining orders against individuals other than former spouses.

There's a lot of legislation in some cases that's very out of date, cumbersome or poorly implemented.

I'm not going into the details but a couple of mates of mine have been very, very badly stalked and found the response woefully inadequate.

Streamlining and modernising stalking and harassment legislation would actually be a far more useful exercise.

Making the laws we already have work better and teaching the Gardai more about how to enforce them would be far more use than this bill which opens doors to censorship rather than dealing with the broader problem.

Little CuChulainn · 24-07-2015 6:12pm

SpaceTime wrote: »

Stalking and cyber bullying are two very different things.

This is more about reports of stalking, particularly female on male, not being taken very seriously and very limited ability to get safety / retraining orders against individuals other than former spouses.

There's a lot of legislation in some cases that's very out of date, cumbersome or poorly implemented.

Streamlining and modernising stalking and harassment legislation would actually be a far more useful exercise.

It's the same laws that cover both stalking and cyber bullying. There are three main offences. An old offence of using a telephone to cause distress (penalty is a few pounds), harassment (requires persistent negative behaviour towards the victim) and threats to kill (threat must be believed to be real). The only one that comes close to being sufficient is harassment but I've already mentioned at least three common enough scenarios where it is ineffective. There are still many other types of bullying, such as the very common tactic of setting up an account in the name of the victim, which do not come under any statute.

SpaceTime · 24-07-2015 6:16pm

Little CuChulainn wrote: »

It's the same laws that cover both stalking and cyber bullying. There are three main offences. An old offence of using a telephone to cause distress (penalty is a few pounds), harassment (requires persistent negative behaviour towards the victim) and threats to kill (threat must be believed to be real). The only one that comes close to being sufficient is harassment but I've already mentioned at least three common enough scenarios where it is ineffective. There are still many other types of bullying, such as the very common tactic of setting up an account in the name of the victim, which do not come under any statute.

As I was saying, the issue was with lack of enforcement and not being taken seriously by the guards in both cases, particularly as the source of the harassment and threats was a woman and the victim was male.

Surely setting up an account in someone's name is fraud, impersonation and misrepresentation and ultimately defamation.

Little CuChulainn · 24-07-2015 6:24pm

SpaceTime wrote: »

As I was saying, the issue was with lack of enforcement and not being taken seriously by the guards in both cases, particularly as the source of the harassment and threats was a woman and the victim was male.

The issue is not lack of enforcement or lack of education. Again, I've highlighted a number of scenarios the law does not cover.

SpaceTime wrote: »

Surely setting up an account in someone's name is fraud, impersonation and misrepresentation and ultimately defamation.

Only if used to commit an offence, not and offence, not and offence and civil matter.

SpaceTime · 24-07-2015 6:29pm

Little CuChulainn wrote: »

The issue is not lack of enforcement or lack of education. Again, I've highlighted a number of scenarios the law does not cover.

Only if used to commit an offence, not and offence, not and offence and civil matter.

Even if it's a civil matter it's a very expensive one to be on the wrong side of. A couple of successful law suits against impersonators might cool a lot of it!

Little CuChulainn · 24-07-2015 6:38pm

SpaceTime wrote: »

Even if it's a civil matter it's a very expensive one to be on the wrong side of. A couple of successful law suits against impersonators might cool a lot of it!

It's a very expensive one to be on the right side of. The court can assess your assets to ensure you have enough to pay for costs if you lose and there is very little guarantee you will win. Defamation cases are not a way to stop bullying.

DeVore · 29-07-2015 1:11am

So, I was right.

Last year, for instance, a man received a four-year suspended sentence after he posted vile sexual messages on a website about a woman. Paul Monaghan, from Kilrooskey, Co Roscommon, anonymously posted the woman's full name and address on the website and suggested she was offering sexual favours. The gardaí tracked him down using his IP address and he was successfully prosecuted for harassment.

conorh91 · 29-07-2015 1:43am

DeVore, your understanding of the Bill and the law on harassment is disturbingly flawed.

The Irish law on harassment has not been substantively updated since 1997, yet in the interim there has been a vast revolution in online activity, including retweeting, 'sharing', 'promoting', and other activities that are not adequately regulated under the current legislative regime.

I fear the opposition to Lorraine Higgins' (admittedly somewhat flawed) bill is being spearheaded by an extremist kind of libertarian lobby group.

Lorraine Higgins' Bill does not go much farther than the current law on harassment, apart from updating the latter, making it applicable to modern internet activities like 'sharing', and so on.

I urge anyone who is undecided about Lorraine Higgins' Bill to re-read it, to read the submissions on her bill from non-lobbyists, and to carefully consider the protections they would wish should be available to every bullied child growing up in Ireland.

If after reading these submissions, you disagree with the Bill, fine. But there has been far too much misleading information on this topic to date.

Calhoun · 29-07-2015 2:44am

conorh91 wrote: »

DeVore, your understanding of the Bill and the law on harassment is disturbingly flawed.

The Irish law on harassment has not been substantively updated since 1997, yet in the interim there has been a vast revolution in online activity, including retweeting, 'sharing', 'promoting', and other activities that are not adequately regulated under the current legislative regime.

I fear the opposition to Lorraine Higgins' (admittedly somewhat flawed) bill is being spearheaded by an extremist kind of libertarian lobby group.

Lorraine Higgins' Bill does not go much farther than the current law on harassment, apart from updating the latter, making it applicable to modern internet activities like 'sharing', and so on.

I urge anyone who is undecided about Lorraine Higgins' Bill to re-read it, to read the submissions on her bill from non-lobbyists, and to carefully consider the protections they would wish should be available to every bullied child growing up in Ireland.

If after reading these submissions, you disagree with the Bill, fine. But there has been far too much misleading information on this topic to date.

Oh nice the Helen love joy defence won't some one think of the children while we stand back and erode our freedom speech.

mikom · 29-07-2015 2:50am

conorh91 wrote: »

DeVore, your understanding of the Bill and the law on harassment is disturbingly flawed.

The Irish law on harassment has not been substantively updated since 1997, yet in the interim there has been a vast revolution in online activity, including retweeting, 'sharing', 'promoting', and other activities that are not adequately regulated under the current legislative regime.

I fear the opposition to Lorraine Higgins' (admittedly somewhat flawed) bill is being spearheaded by an extremist kind of libertarian lobby group.

Lorraine Higgins' Bill does not go much farther than the current law on harassment, apart from updating the latter, making it applicable to modern internet activities like 'sharing', and so on.

I urge anyone who is undecided about Lorraine Higgins' Bill to re-read it, to read the submissions on her bill from non-lobbyists, and to carefully consider the protections they would wish should be available to every bullied child growing up in Ireland.

If after reading these submissions, you disagree with the Bill, fine. But there has been far too much misleading information on this topic to date.

Children.

conorh91 · 29-07-2015 2:56am

mikom wrote: »

Children.

Write whole sentences.

hatrickpatrick · 29-07-2015 3:07am

conorh91 wrote: »

I urge anyone who is undecided about Lorraine Higgins' Bill to re-read it, to read the submissions on her bill from non-lobbyists, and to carefully consider the protections they would wish should be available to every bullied child growing up in Ireland.

Personally I just want to see a return to a world in which things written on the internet were not taken seriously or personally, and people offended by them simply turned off the computer.

And it's definitely not just a case of adults being older and wiser either - I and others I know used online chatrooms etc when we were 10-11 (be honest, how many of ye actually obeyed the "no signing up before 13" rule?) and when f*cked up stuff was said, the standard reaction was "this is the internet, it's weird, just go with it" rather than "someone said something mean, time to question my entire world view and get incredibly upset and bitter about anonymous slagging matches".

Are people genuinely denying that we've somehow sleepwalked into a world in which many people's sensibilities have turned to complete egg shells? The internet was pretty much as widely used ten years ago and the first social networking sites were already well used by teens (anyone remember bebo?) yet people actually taking it personally and getting upset over online nastiness was incredibly rare. The attitude back then was "f*ck the haters", not "take every anonymous insult as an affront to your soul".

P. Breathnach · 29-07-2015 9:29am

hatrickpatrick wrote: »

Personally I just want to see a return to a world in which things written on the internet were not taken seriously ...

I'll start with the "inalienable right to free speech" type of crap that you advocate.

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

Comments