What's new
Fantasy Football - Footballguys Forums

Welcome to Our Forums. Once you've registered and logged in, you're primed to talk football, among other topics, with the sharpest and most experienced fantasy players on the internet.

Australia’s new anti violence internet law: good idea or bad? (1 Viewer)

parasaurolophus

Footballguy
https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.nytimes.com/2019/04/03/world/australia/social-media-law.amp.html

In the wake of Christchurch, Australia just passed a law which will punish Facebook, Google and other IPs if they fail to act swiftly to remove hate filled and violent rhetoric. 

Thia is clearly a form of censorship. But is it a good idea? Should we consider this ourselves? 
Where does it say hate filled? 

That article only mentions violent material. Big difference. 

 

BassNBrew

IBL Representative
https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.nytimes.com/2019/04/03/world/australia/social-media-law.amp.html

In the wake of Christchurch, Australia just passed a law which will punish Facebook, Google and other IPs if they fail to act swiftly to remove hate filled and violent rhetoric. 

Thia is clearly a form of censorship. But is it a good idea? Should we consider this ourselves? 
The legislation criminalizes “abhorrent violent material,” which it defines as videos that show terrorist attacks, murders, rape or kidnapping. 

 

parasaurolophus

Footballguy
There’s been other articles that have mentioned hate. I think it’s pretty clear who they’re going after. 4Chan was mentioned by the legislators. 
"The legislation criminalizes “abhorrent violent material,” which it defines as videos that show terrorist attacks, murders, rape or kidnapping"

If you click on the link in your link to the actual bill it has nothing to do with hate speech. 

 

BassNBrew

IBL Representative
Wonder if they''ll go after video games next?

Social media companies that fail to remove such content “expeditiously”
I don't see how you can create a law with defining expeditiously.  Not sure how it would work, but these companies could fire back and just cut off service to Australia.

 

timschochet

Footballguy
OK. I stand corrected, and I changed the title. It’s still very controversial. What do you guys think of it? 

 

IvanKaramazov

Footballguy
https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.nytimes.com/2019/04/03/world/australia/social-media-law.amp.html

In the wake of Christchurch, Australia just passed a law which will punish Facebook, Google and other IPs if they fail to act swiftly to remove hate filled and violent rhetoric. 

Thia is clearly a form of censorship. But is it a good idea? Should we consider this ourselves? 
No, it's not a good idea.  And it would violate the first amendment if we did it ourselves.

 

timschochet

Footballguy
No, it's not a good idea.  And it would violate the first amendment if we did it ourselves.
Your response doesn’t surprise me as I know you to be a libertarian. And in regards to censorship issues I’ve always been one myself. 

But lately I have mentioned that, with regards to several issues, the old rules don’t apply anymore. This might be one of them. Internet is so fast, and the consequences so potentially devastating, that maybe there does need to be special restrictions that we would never apply to books or movies or music. I don’t know; I’m just speculating. 

With regard to the 1st Amendment: we already regulate the internet for content don’t we? For example, child pornagraphy is illegal. So why would this violate it? 

 

IvanKaramazov

Footballguy
Your response doesn’t surprise me as I know you to be a libertarian. And in regards to censorship issues I’ve always been one myself. 

But lately I have mentioned that, with regards to several issues, the old rules don’t apply anymore. This might be one of them. Internet is so fast, and the consequences so potentially devastating, that maybe there does need to be special restrictions that we would never apply to books or movies or music. I don’t know; I’m just speculating. 

With regard to the 1st Amendment: we already regulate the internet for content don’t we? For example, child pornagraphy is illegal. So why would this violate it? 
With regard to the internet being fast and widely-available, people made the same arguments about television.

Child pornography is illegal is because raping kids is rightly illegal.  But Lolita is legal because it's a fictional work.  Call of Duty: Modern Warfare famously included a segment in which the player adopts the role of a terrorist who massacres people in an airport.  Would that be banned under the proposed law in Australia?  I don't know, but I'm extremely confident that somebody would try.

 

timschochet

Footballguy
With regard to the internet being fast and widely-available, people made the same arguments about television.

Child pornography is illegal is because raping kids is rightly illegal.  But Lolita is legal because it's a fictional work.  Call of Duty: Modern Warfare famously included a segment in which the player adopts the role of a terrorist who massacres people in an airport.  Would that be banned under the proposed law in Australia?  I don't know, but I'm extremely confident that somebody would try.
But we do regulate television. 

With regard to child pornography, I don’t believe that the fictional aspect of Lolita is the determining factor in making it legal. It’s not a prurient work. Using your example, if I made a Call of Duty type game in which the player adopted the role of a child molestor, and the game was all about raping children, do you think that would be legal? I don’t. 

 
Last edited by a moderator:

IvanKaramazov

Footballguy
But we do regulate television. 

With regard to child pornography, I don’t believe that the fictional aspect of Lolita is the determining factor in making it legal. It’s not a prurient work. Using your example, if I made a Call of Duty type game in which the player adopted the role of a child molestor, and the game was all about raping children, do you think that would be legal? I don’t. 
That's a good question.  There was a court case a while back about "virtual" child pornography that didn't involve actual children, which would be another good problem case in this area.  

Needless to say, I'm not losing any sleep about the time-honored right to broadcast your killing spree on social media, and I think YT, FB, etc. handled this attack just fine all things considered.  I'm not seeing a need for government intervention.

 

parasaurolophus

Footballguy
But we do regulate television. 

With regard to child pornography, I don’t believe that the fictional aspect of Lolita is the determining factor in making it legal. It’s not a prurient work. Using your example, if I made a Call of Duty type game in which the player adopted the role of a child molestor, and the game was all about raping children, do you think that would be legal? I don’t. 
Tv is an interesting comparison. But those are civil penalties. 

 

The General

Footballguy
That's a good question.  There was a court case a while back about "virtual" child pornography that didn't involve actual children, which would be another good problem case in this area.  

Needless to say, I'm not losing any sleep about the time-honored right to broadcast your killing spree on social media, and I think YT, FB, etc. handled this attack just fine all things considered.  I'm not seeing a need for government intervention.
A little nudge in the way of monster fines and bad press is perhaps enough to get YT, FB, Twitter, etc to continue to improve their practices in how truly awful content is posted, shared or whatever.

 

Ramblin Wreck

Footballguy
But we do regulate television. 

With regard to child pornography, I don’t believe that the fictional aspect of Lolita is the determining factor in making it legal. It’s not a prurient work. Using your example, if I made a Call of Duty type game in which the player adopted the role of a child molestor, and the game was all about raping children, do you think that would be legal? I don’t. 
I saw this story on the news recently.   Speaking of role playing, who in their right mind thought this would be a good idea?   And this is in a very affluent, diverse area of Northern Virginia.  Teachers making 4th, 5th, and 6th graders play the Underground Railroad slave chasing game during Black History Month.   What the hell?

https://patch.com/virginia/ashburn/students-told-make-slavery-escape-game-ashburn

 

timschochet

Footballguy

jonessed

Footballguy
A little nudge in the way of monster fines and bad press is perhaps enough to get YT, FB, Twitter, etc to continue to improve their practices in how truly awful content is posted, shared or whatever.
Facebook should never have been able to release the Facebook Live product without the ability to detect and remove content like this.  Tech companies have gotten away with this release first, fix later concept for far too long.  Their security investments have been far too lax because the punishments are trivial.

 

BassNBrew

IBL Representative
jonessed said:
Facebook should never have been able to release the Facebook Live product without the ability to detect and remove content like this.  Tech companies have gotten away with this release first, fix later concept for far too long.  Their security investments have been far too lax because the punishments are trivial.
Alcohol companies, gun companies, tobacco companies, automobile companies should never have been able to release.................

 

Sheriff Bart

Footballguy
jonessed said:
Facebook should never have been able to release the Facebook Live product without the ability to detect and remove content like this.  Tech companies have gotten away with this release first, fix later concept for far too long.  Their security investments have been far too lax because the punishments are trivial.
I agree, there should have been some sort of "filter" in place pre-launch. 

 
Last edited by a moderator:

Users who are viewing this thread

Top