[LINK] itNews: Tas Police fed up with Social Media
planetjim at gmail.com
Mon Jul 16 11:03:34 AEST 2012
This is an example of the popular intuition that the Internet is somehow
official or something so higher standards apply and the government is
responsible, when in fact the opposite - it's down to you baby - more often
On 16 July 2012 10:41, Roger Clarke <Roger.Clarke at xamax.com.au> wrote:
> >At 08:46 AM 16/07/2012, Roger Clarke wrote:
> >>"Police should be contacted only where the content relates directly
> >>to a crime," he said.
> At 9:55 +1000 16/7/12, Jan Whitaker wrote:
> >Question: Is defamation a crime or a civil offence?
> I was about to quip "Only in Singapore, and even then only if the
> alleged defamee is someone in the ruling clique". (Okay, 'ruling
> clique' is technically inaccurate, but you know what I mean).
> And of course there's Thailand as well, although that's really lese
> majeste, which applies in (some?) other jurisdictions as well:
> Lese majeste existed in Australia until *at least* 1940:
> And yes, there is such a thing as criminal defamation in Oz, e.g.
> I wonder if there are many prosecutions.
> I doubt it. But Don Wetherburn's NSW Crime Stats would tell us about
> that jursidiction at least.
> Here's a recent press report from SA:
> >And what about cyberbullying? Will the police act then? What about
> >racial vilification? The broad brush about what happens offline
> >versus online isn't good enough a distinction.
> Quite right.
> But they're trying to filter out the 'this person was rude about me!'
> >As far as I can tell, the individual can still sue someone for
> >defamation. Let's clog the courts then! ;-)
> >But there are cases of criminal defamation, but according to the link
> >below, it appears to come after a finding of a judge that the case
> >involved malice, rather than police doing anything in advance of the
> Roger Clarke http://www.rogerclarke.com/
> Xamax Consultancy Pty Ltd 78 Sidaway St, Chapman ACT 2611 AUSTRALIA
More information about the Link