[LINK] Exposing on-line trolls

[David]

On 2021-12-08 12:55, Fiona Martin wrote:

> This is an anti-defamation bill - nothing to do with social media abuse more broadly, and doesn't define trolling let alone social media.

That's a good point.

I suppose the title of a bill may be expressed in the language of the Common Man at the time that bill passed into Law whether or not all the words then have a legal interpretation.  On a quick search, however, the word or compound part "troll" in the draft "Social Media (Anti-Trolling) Bill, 2021" only appears in the title and its' relevance within the Bill is not further defined.

Surely this is pushing things a bit?

In Middle European folklore, mothers warned their daughters about trolls, who lurked under bridges lying in wait for innocent young maidens.  A fibreglass reminder of their scariness lurks under the light-railway viaduct at the eastern end of Johnston Street, Annandale (:-)!  Or did before the latest State Government homage to motor transport.

> It's meant to paper over the cracks of the Voller ruling which left publishers responsible for defamatory comments on their social media accounts, but with no easy process for identifying the offending parties. There's a great Crikey article which I'll post in full below because it's behind a firewall otherwise.

The High Court decision certainly seems a valuable clarification because it recognises that both the commenter and the organisation disseminating defaming comments publicly are parties to "defamation" and share responsibility for consequent injury.

However I wonder whether it will make much difference in practice?  While it may help high-profile cases, very few of the innocent teenagers damaged by such abuse have the intelligence, tenacity, and public profile of Dylan Voller, so they'll just go on through life as damaged people.

And even if their parents have the time & resources to pursue the matter in Court, the power & resource imbalance between the parties is huge, not to mention the difficulty of proving defamation in the first place.

David Lochrin