There is no freedom of speech is Australia

[wakachamo]

You must never feed the troll.

 

[Porygon-Z]

This is not irrelevant because pointing out that this would be unacceptable in a country considered to have some of the greatest levels of Freedom of Speech suggests that this would be unacceptable in a country with lesser levels of freedom of speech. I'm not going to pretend I know enough about Australian law to argue this topic natively, so I'm using comparisons.

That doesn't make any sense. You just said yourself that Australia has less freedom of speech, and if that's the law of their land then that's it. The law doesn't change because you liken it to something else. Comparisons are meaningless in situations where things are black and white. The law is one of those areas.

If she wanted to break the laws of her country perhaps she should have gone to America to do it, where she would have gotten away with it.

It is irrelevant to discuss who has the most freedom of speech, however. =/

Exactly my point, so why compare Australia to America? All that matters is that an Australian woman, broke the Australian law and was justly punished for her crime. We don't need to know any more than that... unless she could be proven innocent....which is unlikely.

 

[FreakyLocz14]

That doesn't make any sense. You just said yourself that Australia has less freedom of speech, and if that's the law of their land then that's it. The law doesn't change because you liken it to something else. Comparisons are meaningless in situations where things are black and white. The law is one of those areas.

If she wanted to break the laws of her country perhaps she should have gone to America to do it, where she would have gotten away with it.




Exactly my point, so why compare Australia to America? All that matters is that an Australian woman, broke the Australian law and was justly punished for her crime. We don't need to know any more than that... unless she could be proven innocent....which is unlikely.

This thread wasn't started to put the women's guilt or innoncence on trail; that's what a court of law is for. This thread is to discuss whether or not you, in your opinion, believe that her actions should be protected under freedom of speech and if Australia can rightfully claim that it people enjoy freedom of speech.

 

[mvtm]

All i have to say,
Venezuela.

 

[Porygon-Z]

This thread wasn't started to put the women's guilt or innoncence on trail; that's what a court of law is for. This thread is to discuss whether or not you, in your opinion, believe that her actions should be protected under freedom of speech and if Australia can rightfully claim that it people enjoy freedom of speech.

I wasn't actually suggesting she was innocent, I was making a joke.

Of course Australia can claim freedom of speech. It can't however, claim absolute freedom of speech, but then no country truly can. If I was to run around an airport telling people I was a suicide bomber I'd get arrested even in America.

Perhaps Australia has less freedom of speech than the U.S.A. but so what? Not all countries have to conform to the standards of the U.S.

 

[Dawn]

I wasn't actually suggesting she was innocent, I was making a joke.

Of course Australia can claim freedom of speech. It can't however, claim absolute freedom of speech, but then no country truly can. If I was to run around an airport telling people I was a suicide bomber I'd get arrested even in America.

Perhaps Australia has less freedom of speech than the U.S.A. but so what? Not all countries have to conform to the standards of the U.S.

And to think I almost posted doubting Wakamacho. -.o On the chance you aren't trying to troll us, (Because you're sorta doing it either way. =D) could you please answer the questions at hand?

They are as followed:
Should free speech cover what this woman did?
Does Australia have enough "Free Speech" to be able to honestly say it's citizens enjoy it?

This thread wasn't started to put the women's guilt or innoncence on trail; that's what a court of law is for. This thread is to discuss whether or not you, in your opinion, believe that her actions should be protected under freedom of speech and if Australia can rightfully claim that it people enjoy freedom of speech.

My answers are as followed:
No, this woman should not be protected under freedom of speech because what she did was deliberate, pre-meditated harm to others. She had every intention of causing suffering and every intention of exploiting the law as much as possible.

But does Australia's citizens truly enjoy freedom of speech? Honestly? I don't feel as if I know enough to answer that question. I do however heavily disapprove with some of their censorship.

 

[Silver]

All i have to say,
Venezuela.

I read that as Vuvuzela, which in my mind, is a much better idea for this topic.

BzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzZZZZZZZzzzzzZZZZZZZZzzzzzzzzZZZZ

 

[Livewire]

Again, had this happened in America, this would be a Civil, not a criminal issue, if it were tried in a court of law.

For example, Some magazine publishes a false story about a celebrity, spewing lies, made up stories, etc. the most that celebrity could do, in terms of legal action, is to bring a civil suit to a US. district court, where they could press libel, slander, defamation charges, and take a big chunk of the magazine publishers money as the financial settlement of the case. The magazine publisher's staff, etc, cannot, however, be sent to jail.

What is being argued here is two Separate things. (Civil vs. Criminal) However, the fact that somebody can get arrested for something (in this case some nasty troll posts) they put on FACEBOOK of all places is appalling, considering no Criminal activity occured here. Defamation of character isnt an offense punishable by jail time.

the lady is still an evil lil troll anyways.


Back on topic, freedom of speech has limitations, but what exactly those limitations are, will always be up for discussion. Everybody is going to have a different opinion. Im sure aside from this incident, most Australians enjoy freedom of speech.

 

[Dawn]

Again, had this happened in America, this would be a Civil, not a criminal issue, if it were tried in a court of law.

For example, Some magazine publishes a false story about a celebrity, spewing lies, made up stories, etc. the most that celebrity could do, in terms of legal action, is to bring a civil suit to a US. district court, where they could press libel, slander, defamation charges, and take a big chunk of the magazine publishers money as the financial settlement of the case. The magazine publisher's staff, etc, cannot, however, be sent to jail.

That's not a comparable issue. A simple lie is not going to get you hit nearly as hard as what this troll did, which was blatant harassment, defamation, and inciting of illegal acivity with intent of causing grievous emotional trauma. (See: Making people want to hunt them down and shoot them. 8D) ...Among other things, no doubt.

Why should she be allowed to not be in jail? So she can continue to do these things and violate other people's rights and cause harm? There comes a point where you have to say "Heck no, money is not going to solve anything." and you throw an idiot in jail to keep people safe. This is an instance of that point.

Back on topic, freedom of speech has limitations, but what exactly those limitations are, will always be up for discussion. Everybody is going to have a different opinion. Im sure aside from this incident, most Australians enjoy freedom of speech.

The limitations themselves are actually not up for discussion. How they apply to different situations, however, is.

 

[.Gamer]

I'm pretty sure since that person is dead, they aren't going to be bothered by it at all.

I don't see why she should have been sentenced to jail. I mean, yeah it was wrong, but they could have simply blocked her from the facebook page of the dead guy. Technically speaking there was nothing wrong, in a legal sense, of what she did. The judge just got his (or her) panties up in a twist because it was mean. Boo hoo people do mean **** all the time.

Also I want to respond to these:

...This reminds me of certain actions performed by the Westboro Baptist Church, who I'd just as soon defend as this lady who trolls the victims of a death.

Why in God's name would defend the Westboro Baptist Church nutjobs? I don't even think God likes them.

Also, people shouldn't troll, no matter what the circumstance is.

Nah, trolling is very fun. Once you start doing it its hard to stop. Its like crack but not deadly and you don't have to be poor to do it.

Also, I completely disagree with Went's first post. If that was the case then everyone who made fun of dead celebrities should be locked up? Defamatory speech =/= mockery. Defamatory speech (as far as I know) is ruining someones good name after death. Accusing them of doing illegal, taboo, or otherwise unlikeable acts when they are not around to defend themselves.

Just one last thing, in no way do I condone or promote this woman's behavior, but I do think that the punishment was a bit over the top. A fine of XXXX amount of dollars (or whatever they use in KangarooLand) would have been just fine. 3 months in prison for posting some stupid **** on a Facebook page is completely ridiculous. It was wrong and inappropriate, but it wasn't illegal.

 

[Dawn]

Why in God's name would defend the Westboro Baptist Church nutjobs? I don't even think God likes them.

That... was the point ._.;

Also, I completely disagree with Went's first post. If that was the case then everyone who made fun of dead celebrities should be locked up? Defamatory speech =/= mockery. Defamatory speech (as far as I know) is ruining someones good name after death. Accusing them of doing illegal, taboo, or otherwise unlikeable acts when they are not around to defend themselves.

Just one last thing, in no way do I condone or promote this woman's behavior, but I do think that the punishment was a bit over the top. A fine of XXXX amount of dollars (or whatever they use in KangarooLand) would have been just fine. 3 months in prison for posting some stupid **** on a Facebook page is completely ridiculous. It was wrong and inappropriate, but it wasn't illegal.

Well, uh, quite honestly you don't know what defamatory speech is. I mean your definition is literally wrong. Sorry >.> Mockery = Defamatory speech, I'm afraid. Mockery will not necessarily get you in trouble, but it is in fact defamatory.

If it's not jail, it's an institution, because she needs serious help before she's going to be ready for society. Money will not solve her problems. Money will not stop her from harming other people. Money is not the answer.

What she did was extreme, so she got an extreme punishment. Where's the problem? 3 months isn't even that long, compared to most crimes.

 

[Jorah]

If trolling is a crime, I think a certain yellow someone should be spending some time in jail ;)

 

[-Leaf]

If trolling is a crime, I think a certain yellow someone should be spending some time in jail ;)

Brilliant joke.

Trolling, is not, by any means, a crime. It is just a.. way of attracting attention, or a misleading thing, I don't know anymore, but I am certain that Ms. Yellow here is not trolling, or rather, the troll is you. Making a message pointing out a rather random thing toward someone who wasn't even doing the thing is pretty much enough for me to be considered a troll. That's, of course, the way I view it.

Things I wanted to reply aside, I already read that article, it's certainly not something to be taken lightly, such as "She cursed, nothing wrong, etc".
First, when did freedom of speech has to be applied anywhere? As much as advanced are we, I do not believe it should be applied particularly anywhere.
While my lack of information of Australia probably hinders this post vastly, I still think that there should be a sort of punishment. A pretty hard one. I've lost what I had on my head for this, so, I will continue with:

https://news.ninemsn.com.au/national/7938759/facebook-troll-sentenced

A Queensland woman was given a three-month suspended sentenced for trolling a Facebook page dedicated to the memory of a woman who died not too long ago. The judge who sentenced her said that her action were sickening but what what's more sickening to me is the lack of freedom of speech liberties in Australia. This is just my three cents though.

I believe that sickening actions are enough of a judgment.
Furthermore, I'd like to point to a quote from the article:

Ms Cook used a fake name to post offensive pictures, including a headless corpse and **********, onto the page


She also warned other online trolls that the "heavy hand of the law will come down on you" if inappropriate material is posted on social networking sites


Ms Cook's lawyer, Michael Connolly, claimed that she was bullied as a child and suffered mental health problems.
Mr Connolly said she used the internet "as a way of venting her frustrations".

First and foremost, I believe that posting offensive pictures as mentioned in the first quoted paragraph is indeed not an action of.. proper actions. Or rather, proper things to post on a page dedicated to someone who was murdered recently.

The second paragraph shows the limit, or, as discussed here, the limit of freedom of speech. Personally, though, I dislike the fact that freedom of speech is mentioned too much here.

Third paragraph is, as I'd define it, the cake. By no means a lie. As of it, bullied as a child and suffered mental health problems are things that should have been taken care of sooner. I believe there are treatments for those sorts of things. Or at least, medicine that can calm yourself down. Using the internet as means of releasing yourself is, as much as my own ideals go, not a way to go.

Not going to be rude, but I see this thread heading in.. the wrong direction, at the very least. I am not going to say, or remark any out of the place posts either, but, I can see this not ending on a good note.

This post, of course, is my view. I am quite certain I have missed some good points, or even have this one deleted, but, I'd post it anyway.
I am also sending my sorry for Jorah if I had mistaken reading your post, my ability to read English sometimes is not the best, despite how much times English people said to me my posts were clear, also, sarcasm isn't... one of the thing I notice all the time either.
I also feel this post might lead for a flame war.

 

[FreakyLocz14]

That... was the point ._.;



Well, uh, quite honestly you don't know what defamatory speech is. I mean your definition is literally wrong. Sorry >.> Mockery = Defamatory speech, I'm afraid. Mockery will not necessarily get you in trouble, but it is in fact defamatory.

If it's not jail, it's an institution, because she needs serious help before she's going to be ready for society. Money will not solve her problems. Money will not stop her from harming other people. Money is not the answer.

What she did was extreme, so she got an extreme punishment. Where's the problem? 3 months isn't even that long, compared to most crimes.

I would like to point out that defamation refers to defamation of character, the harming of a person's reputation. If these Westboro nutjobs actions are protected under the 1st Amendment (various courts have protected their actions) then this women probably would have been protected as well had this happened in the U.S.

So are you suggesting we incarcerate or institutionalize every internet troll out there? Comr to think of it I might be able to live with that if it gets 4chan shut down (hehe). You have made some good points though, Yellow, and have partially swayed me. I believe she should be treated for any ment health problems her lawyer claims she has. I'm not a believer in involuntary commitement but perhaps they could offer her mental health services, issue a restraining order, award the victim any damages suffered, and have her banned from Facebook.

 

[Livewire]

That's not a comparable issue. A simple lie is not going to get you hit nearly as hard as what this troll did, which was blatant harassment, defamation, and inciting of illegal acivity with intent of causing grievous emotional trauma. (See: Making people want to hunt them down and shoot them. 8D) ...Among other things, no doubt.

Why should she be allowed to not be in jail? So she can continue to do these things and violate other people's rights and cause harm? There comes a point where you have to say "Heck no, money is not going to solve anything." and you throw an idiot in jail to keep people safe. This is an instance of that point.



The limitations themselves are actually not up for discussion. How they apply to different situations, however, is.

Im sorry but murderers, Pedophiles/rapists, drug dealers, etc, are the ones that belong in Jail. They are criminals, and deserve it. This lady is obviously just an evil wench.

She made fun of somebody and insulted their memory. Sue her for every penny she's got, fine. But jailtime because you made fun/harassed somebody on facebook is ludicrous.

 

[Dawn]

So are you suggesting we incarcerate or institutionalize every internet troll out there?

Well, no... I wouldn't say trolling is automatically worth jailtime or being put in a mental institution, just like I wouldn't say all fights should put the fighters in jail. It's all very situational.

But for this particular situation? Yeah I'd say she went way too far.

For the record, the Westboro Baptist Church was sued many, many times for their actions.

Im sorry but murderers, Pedophiles/rapists, drug dealers, etc, are the ones that belong in Jail. They are criminals, and deserve it. This lady is obviously just an evil wench.

Our feelings or mental health are by the dime now? People can do whatever they want to us mentally for a handful of cash? Do you honestly think that's how it works?

How would you like it if your family died and "evil wenches" started hanging posters of graphically dead people on the grave while singing horrible things about each and every one of them? Oh and then they go and laugh about it in front of you when you say anything to them. I'm sure a pocketful of money will buy your happiness back! Every. Single. Time. >=L

 

[Chibi-chan]

You all need to stop trying to step on eachothers foots here.
If you can't have a proper discussion and not insult fest, please leave or I'll have to close this.

 

[Livewire]

Well, no... I wouldn't say trolling is automatically worth jailtime or being put in a mental institution, just like I wouldn't say all fights should put the fighters in jail. It's all very situational.

But for this particular situation? Yeah I'd say she went way too far.

For the record, the Westboro Baptist Church was sued many, many times for their actions.



Our feelings or mental health are by the dime now? People can do whatever they want to us mentally for a handful of cash? Do you honestly think that's how it works?

How would you like it if your family died and "evil wenches" started hanging posters of graphically dead people on the grave while singing horrible things about each and every one of them? Oh and then they go and laugh about it in front of you when you say anything to them. I'm sure a pocketful of money will buy your happiness back! Every. Single. Time. >=L

No im not saying that, honestly if they attack you mentally, just ignore it. Sticks and Stones. Verbal attacks will only inflict harm if you allow them to. You'd just have to be the bigger person and ignore it, or take appropriate action and see to it that your problem is resolved

Well if somebody did that id obviously be angry, who wouldn't. But id involve the proper authorities, and id see to it that proper action is taken. Remember this occurred on facebook, so it happened online. That's different from having it happen in the Real World. 2 different things.

 

[FreakyLocz14]

Well, no... I wouldn't say trolling is automatically worth jailtime or being put in a mental institution, just like I wouldn't say all fights should put the fighters in jail. It's all very situational.

But for this particular situation? Yeah I'd say she went way too far.

For the record, the Westboro Baptist Church was sued many, many times for their actions.



Our feelings or mental health are by the dime now? People can do whatever they want to us mentally for a handful of cash? Do you honestly think that's how it works?

How would you like it if your family died and "evil wenches" started hanging posters of graphically dead people on the grave while singing horrible things about each and every one of them? Oh and then they go and laugh about it in front of you when you say anything to them. I'm sure a pocketful of money will buy your happiness back! Every. Single. Time. >=L

I've read decisions on Westboro lawsuits, and most of them end up with Westboro winning on 1st Amendment grounds. There are a few exceptions where they've been order to pay money, but have never been convicted of crimes. Most of these cases they did lose resulted in them just needing to get a protest/demonstration permit and, in the cases of their funeral pickets, they were ordered to stay off funeral grounds if the grounds were private property. Once they complied with these simple requests, they resumed their usual IRL trolling. If what they were doing were crimes, the entire family would be in prison now since it's that hard to prove that they hold hateful demonstrations given how proud they are about it.

Also, how would putting the lady in prison make the victim feel better? That does nothing to benefit the victim. At least some money benefits the victim in a way. Now if the woman had made threats to harm the deceased person's family, then that would obviously be a crime, even in America.

I know this and Westboro extreme examples, but I have been heavily concerned with the speech censorship that is taking place in the UK and former UK colony nations. For example, in the UK, a religious minister can be prosecuted for publically saying something bad about homosexuals. I don't Westboro type stuff, but the subtle things all the other people who disagree with homosexuality based on religion say.

 

[Dawn]

Also, how would putting the lady in prison make the victim feel better? That does nothing to benefit the victim. At least some money benefits the victim in a way. Now if the woman had made threats to harm the deceased person's family, then that would obviously be a crime, even in America.

...I share that feeling, but it's important to realize that this point of view is a minority. Most people will in-fact feel better if the person that wronged them is punished more severely. They feel better for the same reasons someone feels worse if someone gets away with a crime. Money cannot undo the damage that was done. Too much of a good thing can be bad, right? That applies to freedom of speech. There has to be a limit. Quite honestly even letting the WBC get away with what they do may be pushing necessary limits. How long is it until someone says "Money? Screw money. I want this guy's head!" and we have a murder on our hands? This is all those checks and balances we like so much.