Farah calls on PM to crack down on Twitter abuse

[fightingirish69]

This is what you rightwing hyper free speech types don't understand. If you think he has a right to say those things, it's as good as agreeing with it.

You're either for it or against it.

Btw, it's not about pushing ones own version of morality on other people. This isn't about morals. This is about law and order. We don't allow anarchy in the streets so why should we allow it on the internet

As for your "just log out" suggestion. It shows ignorance about gen Y and younger society. If you "just log out" from social media it's like locking yourself out of a community of your peers. People use social media to network among their professional peers, for some it's used as the main way to study for and do schoolwork. For somepeople opening up social media in the morning is the equivalent of when their parents generation opened the morning paper.

There are people in there 20s now who have applied for and interviewed for every job they've ever had via social media.

Social media is becoming less and less a luxury and more and more an absolutely necessary part of daily life for young people.

And just like we have a right to walk down the street without being abused, we should have the right to be a part of social media without being abused.

but going from right wing fascism to a politically correct left wing fascism is no the way to go

 

[Eels Dude]

However vile the comment made, I agree with those saying if you don't wont to open yourself to such things don't use the bloody thing. It's like that journalist who complained the other week. She would have gained a lot of financial advantage and marketing, and her profile has risen from using twitter. But you have to take the good with the bad if you're going to use it. It's a bit like all these celebrities who make tens of millions of dollars every year and promote their fame, but then complain when paparazzi follow them around.

 

[Iafeta]

The comments about Farah's mum are disgraceful, nothing else can sum it up.

 

[fightingirish69]

The comments about Farah's mum are disgraceful, nothing else can sum it up.

exactly but making it a jailable offence is just plain silly

 

[Tommy Smith]

exactly but making it a jailable offence is just plain silly

Agreed.

The old "sticks and stones" argument.

Maybe it's just me but i'd simply delete the comment, block the offender and move on. As disugsuting as it was, i'd never be one to let some random 'tard affect me with words...

At the end of the day he's still Robbie Farah, a rich representative level footy player with a beautiful wife, and the other bloke is...

So no matter what he says, you'll aways win Robbie...

 

[eozsmiles]

I use twitter everyday. Love it. I very rarely see bullying. When I do it isn't celebrated or condoned. Usually when someone says something out of line or rude then they make themselves a target for other trolls. Which is pretty much what this idiot has done. If you say something that bad to someone with as many followers as Farah then you are going to get chased.

 

[clarency]

Didn't we just get done throwing sh*t at Julia's plans to block particular sites on the internet?

Either free speech is ok or it isn't.

I'm interested to see if Robbie is calling for her to crack down on internet abuse... or just internet abuse directed at him? One is doable... the other is just f*cking geniused.

And going off the way he responds to it... Is he completely oblivious to what a troll is? Ffs he has no idea how to handle himself on the online forum.

 

[Different kind of Rabbit]

That comment was one of the worst things I've ever seen written to another human being... But if you are a celebrity on Twitter you leave yourself open to comments such as that. Censorship is not the answer. Robbie realising that he is a celebrity and people will say things to him to illicit a response, is. It's like when randoms pick fights with NRL players in a night club and then claim assault. A gutless attack designed to illicit a specific response which is best dealt with by walking away.

 

[some11]

...

 

[some11]

Some info I found on laws regarding internet hate speech.

Section 85ZE of the Crimes Act 1914 makes it an offence to use the Internet to disseminate material intentionally that results in a person being menaced or harassed. This offence includes material communicated by email. Federal criminal law, therefore, is available to address racial vilification where the element of threat or harassment is also present, although it does not apply to material that is merely offensive.

 

[BunniesMan]

:lol:


Are you actually saying that people should only have the right to say things that you agree with?

Absolutely not. People have a right to have an opinion that disagrees with me. People have a right to say my opinion is wrong. People do not have a right to use their free speech rights to abuse and cause harm.

THAT is what I'm arguing. And THAT is why free speech isn't the issue. Noone is arguing against free speech, just some of us who are being reasonable are arguing against giving rights without attaching responsibilities to those rights.

For example, I think it is disgusting and unfair to allow people to be saved with donated organs if that person hasn't enabled their own organs to be used when they die.

If I ran the country I'd ban people from benefiting from donated organs unless they ticked the box to allow their organs to be donated.

Rights are not a one way street.

It's also hilarious that you call free speech a right wing idea.

Waving around free speech as a shield to protect hate speech is a right wing idea. Neo-nazis, NAMBLA etc and their mates in the ACLU use the same arguments as those protecting Social Media Trolls are using.

Centrists like myself believe in and cherish free speech. But we believe in the notion of responsibilities being irrevocably chained to the exercise of human rights. You have the right to free speech, free speech is a weapon of immense power, and like all powerful weapons, it must be used responsibly. And when it is not the courts should step in and punish for the greater good of society.

exactly but making it a jailable offence is just plain silly

What's the point of wasting your time saying something is disgraceful when you don't want anything done about it.

People that complain about something that is fixable, but won't fix the problem are illogical.

 

[BunniesMan]

Some info I found on laws regarding internet hate speech.

Section 85ZE of the Crimes Act 1914 makes it an offence to use the Internet to disseminate material intentionally that results in a person being menaced or harassed. This offence includes material communicated by email. Federal criminal law, therefore, is available to address racial vilification where the element of threat or harassment is also present, although it does not apply to material that is merely offensive.

Depends on your definition of harassment. I'd certainly say what Farah experienced was extreme harassment.

 

[BM1979]

Absolutely not. People have a right to have an opinion that disagrees with me. People have a right to say my opinion is wrong. People do not have a right to use their free speech rights to abuse and cause harm.

THAT is what I'm arguing. And THAT is why free speech isn't the issue. Noone is arguing against free speech, just some of us who are being reasonable are arguing against giving rights without attaching responsibilities to those rights.

For example, I think it is disgusting and unfair to allow people to be saved with donated organs if that person hasn't enabled their own organs to be used when they die.

If I ran the country I'd ban people from benefiting from donated organs unless they ticked the box to allow their organs to be donated.

Rights are not a one way street.

Waving around free speech as a shield to protect hate speech is a right wing idea. Neo-nazis, NAMBLA etc and their mates in the ACLU use the same arguments as those protecting Social Media Trolls are using.

Centrists like myself believe in and cherish free speech. But we believe in the notion of responsibilities being irrevocably chained to the exercise of human rights. You have the right to free speech, free speech is a weapon of immense power, and like all powerful weapons, it must be used responsibly. And when it is not the courts should step in and punish for the greater good of society.

What's the point of wasting your time saying something is disgraceful when you don't want anything done about it.

People that complain about something that is fixable, but won't fix the problem are illogical.

Because not everything is a point of law, It is distasteful, Not criminal

 

[some11]

Depends on your definition of harassment. I'd certainly say what Farah experienced was extreme harassment.

Racial vilification has to be the aim first though.

 

[Tom Shines]

Needs to harden up in my opinion. Who cares what an anonymous dribbler posts on twitter?

My grandparents are dead, anyone on here want to send me an abusive message about what you'd do to them, go ahead.

And why is he so special that the government gets to fight his battles for him?

 

[some11]

Looks like other people have gotten under his skin pretty easily on twitter, why give them the time of day?

Delete the crap and if they keep going Twitter should sort them out?

 

[Alex28]

Twitter is an anonymous social media isn't it?
Requiring no identification to sign up?

If Robbie can't move in from it, delete the account and don't partake in Twitter.
Or he can accept the fact that some people on there are only there to cause trouble and ignore the taunts and move on.

Why should he have to? Just because someone is famous why should he have to avoid doing something which is the norm for anybody else? It's pretty pathetic that the only solution to what is a pretty disgraceful act is that the victim has to avoid Twitter. That isn't good enough.

 

[BunniesMan]

Needs to harden up in my opinion. Who cares what an anonymous dribbler posts on twitter?

My grandparents are dead, anyone on here want to send me an abusive message about what you'd do to them, go ahead.

And why is he so special that the government gets to fight his battles for him?

What makes him special is his ability to get cameras and microphones aimed at a particular social issue. Not many of us can do that.

Politicians won't do shit about anything until someone bangs and shouts and gets enough people interested so that the government can't ignore it.

 

[Front-Rower]

exactly but making it a jailable offence is just plain silly

That's why we have civil law. Find the person and sue them for defamation.

 

[Grapple]

Needs to harden up in my opinion. Who cares what an anonymous dribbler posts on twitter?

My grandparents are dead, anyone on here want to send me an abusive message about what you'd do to them, go ahead.

And why is he so special that the government gets to fight his battles for him?

Private Message on the way!