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

Thu, May 5th 2011 10:13am — Mike Masnick

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.

Thank you for reading this Techdirt post. With so many things competing for everyone’s attention these days, we really appreciate you giving us your time. We work hard every day to put quality content out there for our community.

Techdirt is one of the few remaining truly independent media outlets. We do not have a giant corporation behind us, and we rely heavily on our community to support us, in an age when advertisers are increasingly uninterested in sponsoring small, independent sites — especially a site like ours that is unwilling to pull punches in its reporting and analysis.

While other websites have resorted to paywalls, registration requirements, and increasingly annoying/intrusive advertising, we have always kept Techdirt open and available to anyone. But in order to continue doing so, we need your support. We offer a variety of ways for our readers to support us, from direct donations to special subscriptions and cool merchandise — and every little bit helps. Thank you.

–The Techdirt Team

Filed Under: australia, jerks, skype, trolling

34 Comments

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

Reader Comments

Subscribe: RSS

View by: Time | Thread

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

A little clairity.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Chronno S. Trigger (profile), 5 May 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.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - hobo, 5 May 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.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - Christopher (profile), 5 May 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.
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
      - R.H. (profile), 5 May 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 >_
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Chronno S. Trigger (profile), 5 May 2011 @ 11:29am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: A little clairity.
        Ether way, wouldn't that fall under a sex law or privacy law not some internet law? Whether you do it threw IP or RCA, it's the same damn thing.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        hobo, 5 May 2011 @ 11:40am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: A little clairity.
        Agreed.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
      - Squirrel Brains (profile), 5 May 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.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        HothMonster, 5 May 2011 @ 11:24am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: A little clairity.
        ahhh the classics,
        
        http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lFXMFltbe9w
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Squirrel Brains (profile), 5 May 2011 @ 12:27pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: A little clairity.
        GAAAAAA~! That is not what I was talking about. Christopher state that he would be flattered if someone release a sex video of him. I was just throwing down THAT challenge.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        HM, 5 May 2011 @ 12:44pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: A little clairity.
        my apologies, but you should be clearer if you are posting in a thread that has references to mall pooping.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Man Behind A Mask, 5 May 2011 @ 10:29am

This article offends me. Somebody should do something about that.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
ChurchHatesTucker (profile), 5 May 2011 @ 10:58am

I see what you did there
But it's dangerous to use such a broad law.

Heh.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 5 May 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?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Anonymous Coward, 5 May 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!
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Anonymous Coward, 5 May 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?
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - Anonymous Coward, 5 May 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
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
      - Anonymous Coward, 5 May 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.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - harbingerofdoom (profile), 5 May 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.
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
sam, 5 May 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.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
A Dan (profile), 5 May 2011 @ 11:15am

Broadcast?
How is video over Skype to a friend "broadcasting"?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- ChurchHatesTucker (profile), 5 May 2011 @ 11:38am
  
  Re: Broadcast?
  Think about it.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Anonymous Coward, 5 May 2011 @ 12:05pm
    
    Re: Re: Broadcast?
    If it was sent end point to end point it was clearly not broadcast. The word has an actual definition.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - ChurchHatesTucker (profile), 5 May 2011 @ 12:18pm
      
      Re: Re: Re: Broadcast?
      Think some more.
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - A Dan (profile), 5 May 2011 @ 1:00pm
    
    Re: Re: Broadcast?
    To be clear, I understood the (bad) joke, I just don't think that's how Mike was using the word.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - ChurchHatesTucker (profile), 5 May 2011 @ 7:11pm
      
      Re: Re: Re: Broadcast?
      No, of course not. It's my joke that was bad.
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 5 May 2011 @ 11:16am

Is it possible to troll with the anti-troll law?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
JT, 5 May 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
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Overcast (profile), 5 May 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?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 5 May 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'.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Matt, 5 May 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.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- charliebrown (profile), 6 May 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....
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
jon (profile), 5 May 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.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Elias, 9 Sep 2012 @ 11:16pm

They mistaken trolls with complete dicks on the internet. Again, it is the Internet. Prosecuting "trolls" is ridiculously stupid.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]