The Australian government has introduced ground-breaking legislation to combat online bullying and harassment.
The Australian government has introduced some of the world’s harshest “anti-troll” legislation. Still, experts argue that focusing on defamation would not help reduce online bullying or cyberhate rates.
On Sunday, Prime Minister Scott Morrison stated that his government would introduce legislation in parliament this week that would require social media firms to expose the identities of anonymous trolling accounts and provide a road for defamation lawsuits against such individuals.
The proposal would require social media companies to collect personal information from current and new users and allow courts to access users’ identities to file defamation lawsuits. It’s unknown what kind of personal information would be collected, although it’s likely to contain a phone number, email address, and the user’s contact name.
In a major revamp, the proposal would also shift responsibility for defamatory posts from the organisations that administer the pages – such as news organisations – to the social media corporations themselves.
Morison’s Take
Morrison stated that he wanted to guarantee that real-world and online rules were consistent.
“In the digital and online world, the standards that apply in the physical world must apply,” he stated. “The internet world shouldn’t be like the Wild West, where bots, bigots, trolls, and others may go around harming and hurting people anonymously.”
According to the law, social media businesses must provide a complaints process via which consumers can request that content be removed if they believe it is defamatory.
If the post is not removed, the user can request the person who made it. If they refuse to release them, a court order can be issued, requiring the corporation to do so — and allowing the complainant to sue for defamation.
Morrison stated that the government would back the earliest lawsuits to establish a precedent. “We’ll be on the lookout for test cases that can help us strengthen these regulations,” he said.
“So, if the internet corporations or others believe they’ll simply have to deal with someone with limited resources who wants to pursue this, we’ll hunt for those cases.” We will support them in the courts and fight them.”
The potential for anyone to file a lawsuit against the content’s poster if they believe they have been defamed is at the heart of the legislation.
What the Experts Say
Dr. Lauren Rosewarne of the University of Melbourne said defamation was more accessible to detect than trolling and hatred. “Some of these phrases, such as ‘online hate’ and ‘trolling,’ are subjective,” she explained.
“Are highly articulated, repeatedly voiced beliefs that differ from yours, for example, trolling?” Some would answer yes, while others might say no.”
According to her, one of the most critical aspects of the proposed legislation is the acquisition of personal data and the complexity that come with it.
“Who will foot the bill for the verification?” If the data isn’t vetted, I assume the most troublesome social media users will enter fake information with little to no resistance.”
She claims that social media corporations are now just responding to charges of trolling with “lacklustre reactions.”
“Many people have complained that they always get an automatic response from the social media firm and that nothing is done. Users demand a more proactive approach, but this requires a lot of resources.”
After Fairfax and Newscorp lost their appeal to avoid defamation charges after third-party remarks were made on their social media posts about Dylan Voller, the high court declared in September that Australian media corporations might be responsible for defamatory comments placed on Facebook sites.
The Australian Law Council backed the proposed transfer of responsibilities right away.
Dr Jacoba Brasch QC, the Law Council of Australia president, emphasised that a careful balance must be struck between freedom of expression and personal reputation protection.
“A legislative framework that shifts responsibility to originators, in the opinion of the Law Council, will assist in attaining this balance,” Brasch added.
