Image: Asha Barbaschow / ZDNet
Australia’s federal government has pushed for new ‘anti-trolling laws’ that will see the change of libel liability from the owners of social networking sites on social media platforms as it believes changes to the legislation will go a long way towards reducing harm online, but Labor disagrees.
Labor Senator Kim Carr said his party would block the Bill because it doesn’t really address online troll actions and could exacerbate its influence.
“Evidence from the many witnesses appearing before this Committee, including the government department that drafted the bill, unequivocally confirms that the bill is not what it is,” Labor Senator Kim Carr wrote in one report [PDF] published by the Senate committee that reviews the laws.
“On the contrary, this Measure not only does not provide any practical measure against the chaos of online scams, in providing comprehensive protection from liability to those who hosting defamatory comments on websites it owns and administers, as well as legislation extending the safe haven it provides to social media companies that host defamatory material, legislation has the potential to make online trolling worse.”
However, Carr’s opinion is in the minority, with a majority of the Senate standing committees on legal and constitutional issues arguing that the Anti-Fraud Bill should become law as long as it receives three Revision.
Among these amendments, social media site owners remain liable for a poster’s defamatory material in which they knowingly encourage the poster’s publication of defamatory material, and was notified or made aware of the material but still did not delete it in a timely manner.
“The Commission is concerned that the failure of the social media site owner to remove the poster’s defamatory material in a timely manner, as required, has resulted in the social media site owner’s contribution to the publication of the poster. defamatory material, not just facilitate its publication”. committee wrote.
The other two recommendations call for an amendment to the legislation’s complaints program and the disclosure order for end users. Under the current iteration of the Anti-Trolling Bill, social media platforms must ensure that they can notify the alleged poster that they are the subject of a complaint within 72 hours of it being filed. issued as well as a request to allow the removal of flagged content, as well as to comply with other requirements, to avoid liability for defamation.
Despite these requirements, however, social media platforms will not be allowed to remove content unless they are authorized for free speech reasons. Addressing the operation of the complaints program, the Senate committee concluded that social media platforms can take down the poster’s alleged defamatory material, within 72 hours, without prior consent. consent of the poster if the poster does not respond to the request for deletion.
It concluded that giving social media platforms this power would not lead to a violation of free speech.
“While the committee appreciated that the Australian government had been very reluctant to reduce freedom of expression outside the judicial process, many of the submitters supported a quick and easy ‘knockdown’ measure. “, the committee wrote in the report.
Regarding the Bill establishing end-user disclosure orders, intended to force social media platforms to reveal the identities of anonymous users, the Senate committee recommended that the orders be are changed so that they cannot be granted if the court is satisfied that disclosing relevant contact details or country location data could pose a risk to the safety of the poster or any other person , such as in domestic violence situations.
While the committee called for a change in when a person’s identity should be revealed by the Bill’s powers, social media platforms and online abuse victims have both said the request could create safety problems for vulnerable communities in addition to those in situations of domestic violence.
Carr added that while the amendments do improve the Bill, he said adoption of the recommendations would “not come close” to addressing a range of other significant concerns that have been raised. He also echoed concerns raised by Famous Australian defamation expertswho labeled the Bill “a violent attack intended to torture defamation”.
Notably, the committee’s final recommendations did not call for amendments to other components of the legislation that have received much criticism, such as the right to initiate legal proceedings. only available for a limited number of privileges due to high litigation costs.
In this regard, the Senate committee shared concern that the law could greatly increase access to justice issues, but the committee remained hesitant to fully support the development of forms of justice. Alternative, low-cost online defamation dispute resolution.
Social media platforms also complained that the Bill would place the risk of defamation “on an unprecedented scale” on social media platforms as it seeks to remove the protection of pervasive bluff. .
The Senate committee did not appear to be convinced by these arguments, referring to the findings from a recent federal social media poll expressed concern about how social media platforms have failed to take responsibility for and protect Australians from harm online.
Senator and Liberal Attorney General Michaelia Cash previously said anti-fraud legislation was one of the key items, along with the recent federal social media investigation, that the Coalition wanted to get rid of before the election. federal election this year.
Carr noted that the Bill is unlikely to pass before the federal election, as only three days of sitting are expected before the election gets underway.
Relevant scope
