Laptop Rental Provider Sued For Spying On... >>
<< Movie Studios Got Canadian Police To Arrest...
 tdicon 

Culture

by Mike Masnick

Thu, May 5th 2011 10:13am




Filed Under:
australia, jerks, skype, trolling


Australian Anti-Trolling Law Put To The Test After Guy Broadcasts Having Sex Via Skype

from the it's-illegal-to-be-a-jerk-online? dept

We've seen plenty of governments over the past few years trying to pass laws that effectively outlaw being a jerk online. You can recognize the emotional thinking behind this. People who are jerks are annoying. And, certainly, at some level trolling can get ridiculous. But having very broad laws with vague definitions about "causing offense," seems to open up a Pandora's box of potential problems. Reader charliebrown alerts us to the news of an "anti-trolling law" in Australia that is being put to the test in a case against two (male) cadets from the Australian Defense Academy, after one broadcast his consensual sexual encounter with a third (female) cadet to the second male cadet. The law being used is one that is apparently designed to punish "online conduct that a reasonable person would find to be menacing, harassing or causing offence."

If that seems insanely broad, you've noticed the problem. This certainly isn't to suggest that what the guy did was right or even legal. But it's dangerous to use such a broad law. The fact is, any law should be pretty specific. When it's as broad as causing offense on the internet, you've pretty much outlawed almost everything. Anyone can be offended pretty easily at almost anything they find online. The simple fact is that there are some serious jerks online (and these two guys seem to fit into that category easily). But we shouldn't outlaw being a jerk just for the sake of being a jerk.

34 Comments | Leave a Comment

If you liked this post, you may also be interested in...

Reader Comments (rss)

(Flattened / Threaded)

  •  
    icon
    Chronno S. Trigger (profile), May 5th, 2011 @ 10:21am

    A little clairity.

     

    [ reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    •  
      icon
      Chronno S. Trigger (profile), May 5th, 2011 @ 10:25am

      Re: A little clairity.

      F'n enter key. I was going to say:

      The wrong part about this is the fact that the female cadet didn't consent to the broadcast. Should that be illegal? You know, I don't know. If it's in the male's room then he can record anything he wants. If it was in the female's room then it's illegal recording. Though, I don't know the laws in Australia. Ether way, there doesn't need to be an anti-jerk law.

       

      [ reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

      •  
        identicon
        hobo, May 5th, 2011 @ 10:28am

        Re: Re: A little clairity.

        Could simply require consent to be filmed regardless of location. While that seems a bit steep (what about home videos at the zoo with people around or news reports with a wide shot), something to that effect would handle this situation. And would be similar to laws in many states here (U.S.) that don't allow recorded conversation without consent of both parties.

         

        [ reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

        •  
          icon
          Christopher (profile), May 5th, 2011 @ 10:48am

          Re: Re: Re: A little clairity.

          Personally, I feel that you just shouldn't go into the area where you can be recorded if you don't like the possibility of being recorded.

          The fact is that I do not think that recording ANYONE should be illegal, whether you are recording them in a sexual act or not, as long as you are on of the people who are a party to the sexual act or it is your home they are doing the sexual act in.

          Uploading it, in my opinion, also shouldn't be illegal. No one has the right to not be embarrassed, though if someone uploaded one of my sexual encounters I wouldn't be embarrassed.... I would be proud that someone found it attractive enough to put online.

           

          [ reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

          •  
            icon
            R.H. (profile), May 5th, 2011 @ 11:06am

            Re: Re: Re: Re: A little clairity.

            I think that this one falls under the 'reasonable expectation of privacy' definition. I have a reasonable expectation of privacy in a malls public bathroom stall for example and recording me there without my permission is not legal. However, in the rest of the mall where said bathroom exists there is NO reasonable expectation of privacy so I have no say over if I am recorded taking a crap in a potted plant. I saw an actual video of a guy doing that on YouTube...damned friends >_

             

            [ reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

          •  
            icon
            Squirrel Brains (profile), May 5th, 2011 @ 11:07am

            Re: Re: Re: Re: A little clairity.

            Well... now that you have thrown that down. We need a link to see if you are just all bluster.

             

            [ reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  •  
    identicon
    Man Behind A Mask, May 5th, 2011 @ 10:29am

    This article offends me. Somebody should do something about that.

     

    [ reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  •  
    icon
    ChurchHatesTucker (profile), May 5th, 2011 @ 10:58am

    I see what you did there

    But it's dangerous to use such a broad law.

    Heh.

     

    [ reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  •  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, May 5th, 2011 @ 11:08am

    Jerktards

    I can't believe you idiots and your stupid defense of these utter jerks. Its like you want everybody to be jerks to each other. You bunch of jerktards! Clearly they should rot in prison for their clear violation of this most excelent law. And you Mazznick, your the worst jerk of them all. I hope you get arrested the next time you go to Australia for being Supreme Jerk.

    //Am I doing it right?

     

    [ reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    •  
      identicon
      Anonymous Coward, May 5th, 2011 @ 11:26am

      Re: Jerktards

      You are not swearing enough and your grammar and punctuation are correct, otherwise you are on the right track. Oh yeah capitalize some WORDS at random TOO!

       

      [ reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

      •  
        identicon
        Anonymous Coward, May 5th, 2011 @ 11:42am

        Revised Jerktards

        I cant believe you f*cking idiots and your dumb a$$ defense of these utter jerks. Its like you want EVERYBODY to be jerks to each other. You bunch of jerktards! Clearly they should rot in jail for there breaking this awesome law. And you Mazznick your the WORST jerk of them all! I hope you get arrested the next time you go to australia for being SUIPREME JERK!!!!!1!

        //Better?

         

        [ reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

        •  
          identicon
          Anonymous Coward, May 5th, 2011 @ 11:53am

          Re: Revised Jerktards

          No no, you used capitals on the wrong words, try this:

          I cant BELEVE you fuken idiots and your dumb a$$ DEFENCE off these utter jerks. Its like you want EVERYBODY to be jerks to each other you Bunch of jerktards! CLEARLY they should rot in jail for BREAKING this awesome law. And you Mazznick you the WORST jerk of them ALL! I hope you get ARRESTED the next time you go to australia for being SUIPREME JERK!!!!!1!eleven

          //:D (first time I went through it, I accidentally corrected all the grammar errors, then realised that they were deliberate. :S

           

          [ reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

          •  
            identicon
            Anonymous Coward, May 5th, 2011 @ 12:13pm

            Re: Re: Revised Jerktards

            anonymous coward is clearly infringing the intellectual property rights of the other anonymous coward.

            The original anonymous cowards queries "//Am I doing it right?" and "//Better?" were requests for feedback not permission to reuse with minor alterations their own original text.

            AC can expect AC lawyers to contact his lawyers to arrange for payment of royalties and damages and serves him right for being a jerktard(c)(tm) him/her/itself.

             

            [ reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

        •  
          icon
          harbingerofdoom (profile), May 5th, 2011 @ 1:08pm

          Re: Revised Jerktards

          8/10
          it has all the required components but just seems to lack that certain style.


          on topic:
          Being miserable and treating other people like dirt is every New Yorker's God-given right.

           

          [ reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  •  
    identicon
    sam, May 5th, 2011 @ 11:12am

    so basically they used an illegal wiretap in the commission of a sex crime and you charge him under anti-trolling laws? this is ****** up.

     

    [ reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  •  
    icon
    A Dan (profile), May 5th, 2011 @ 11:15am

    Broadcast?

    How is video over Skype to a friend "broadcasting"?

     

    [ reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  •  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, May 5th, 2011 @ 11:16am

    Is it possible to troll with the anti-troll law?

     

    [ reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  •  
    identicon
    JT, May 5th, 2011 @ 11:40am

    whaaaat?

    If people are getting offended by stuff on the internet then they shouldn't be so easily offended...

    ...and guess what, you can always press the little red cross in the corner and it magically goes away! w00t ^^

    I'm sick to death of hearing people complaining about something they saw on tv/internets/video game offending them... you have a choice to watch it so choose not to instead of kicking up a massive fuss about it all :)

    It is for this reason that legislation such as this has no place in a society full of rational human beings

     

    [ reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  •  
    icon
    Overcast (profile), May 5th, 2011 @ 11:45am

    Is this a case of the sender being a jerk?

    Or a case of the receiver being an idiot?

    I assume SkyPe has an 'off' button?

     

    [ reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  •  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, May 5th, 2011 @ 12:18pm

    You've got it wrong, mike. Just outlawing jerks is too specific. We need a strong law against the use of carbon in molecules. No more will criminals be able to talk their way out of their rightful sentences.

    Please write your congressman and tell him to support this new law. Feel free to remind him that anyone who doesn't might be seen as 'soft on crime'.

     

    [ reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  •  
    identicon
    Matt, May 5th, 2011 @ 3:57pm

    Right to privacy

    The facts are the idiot had sex with a fellow cadet in a private room (not in public) and shared via Skype with six other cadets. Surely the female cadet should be entitled to a right to privacy. If this was the government recording your US readers would be bashing the doors down. Why shouldn't the cadet expect the law to offer the same protection from an individual as we do from the government.

    There have been several cases in Aust where people have gone to jail for setting up illegal cameras (normal AV equipment) in their roommate's roof and bathrooms. The video wasn't shared. I'm not sure whether they have charged the cadets under the correct laws, but I believe the cadet who knowingly setup the recording should go to jail.

    I think that sharing the video with others via the internet, DVD or otherwise is even worse. Just because this terrible breach of privacy involved the internet does not make it ok to not apply the law. Alternatively maybe they should let the cadets serve in combat together, attach a web cam to the females rifle and let her shoot the wanker in the back of the head at the first opportunity.

     

    [ reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    •  
      icon
      charliebrown (profile), May 6th, 2011 @ 2:15am

      Re: Right to privacy

      Actually, that was my reason for submitting the story: I wanted to demonstrate that (for once) the service provider (Skype) was not getting blamed. Although I do agree the law is a bit broad....

       

      [ reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  •  
    icon
    jon (profile), May 5th, 2011 @ 7:17pm

    Australia censorship

    In Australia it is illegal to host a xxx website. There is an blacklist of sites in operation. There is no 'freedom of speech' law. And so on.

     

    [ reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  •  
    identicon
    Elias, Sep 9th, 2012 @ 11:16pm

    They mistaken trolls with complete dicks on the internet. Again, it is the Internet. Prosecuting "trolls" is ridiculously stupid.

     

    [ reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]


Add Your Comment

Have a Techdirt Account? Sign in now. Want one? Register here
Get Techdirt’s Daily Email
Save me a cookie
  • Note: A CRLF will be replaced by a break tag (<br>), all other allowable HTML will remain intact
  • Allowed HTML Tags: <b> <i> <a> <em> <br> <strong> <blockquote> <hr> <tt>
Laptop Rental Provider Sued For Spying On... >>
<< Movie Studios Got Canadian Police To Arrest...
 tdicon 
Follow Techdirt
Flattr rss rss
A word from our Sponsors...
Sponsored Resource
Essential Reading
Techdirt Reading List
Techdirt Insider Chat

A word from our Sponsors...
Recent Stories

Saturday

12:00pm: Sophisticatedjanedoe / FightCopyrightTrolls Favorite Techdirt Posts Of The Week (39)
9:00am: Awesome Stuff: Cool Product Designs (7)

Friday

7:39pm: Rice University Professor: SkyNET's Gonna Take Ur Jerbs! (55)
6:33pm: Make Art, Not Law (8)
5:27pm: AP's Attempt At DRM'ing The News Shuts Down (13)
5:00pm: DailyDirt: DIY Junk Food (3)
3:40pm: Suburban Express Goes Double Or Nothing On Their Aggressive Behavior (7)
2:34pm: Want To Destroy Any Hope Of Serious Cybersecurity? Give The DOJ Its Desired Backdoor Wiretaps On All Communications (20)
1:34pm: Nintendo Exchanges Goodwill For Control; Issues Mass Monetization Claims On Let's Play Videos (31)
12:32pm: Indian Publishing Firm Can't Take A Little Criticism, Threatens Blogger With $1 Billion Lawsuit, Criminal Charges (13)
More arrow
A word from our Sponsors...

Close

Email This