Australia plans tougher social media laws for failing to thwart violent content

By Lidia Kelly

 

FILE PHOTO: Australia's Prime Minister Scott Morrison speaks during the INPEX Gala Dinner in Darwin, Australia November 16, 2018. David Moir/Pool via REUTERS/File Photo

 

MELBOURNE (Reuters) - Social media executives could spend up to three years in prison and their firms be fined 10 percent of their turnover if they fail to quickly remove violent material from their platforms, according to a new law proposed by the Australian government.

 

The March 15 massacre in Christchurch, New Zealand, in which 50 worshippers were killed at two mosques was carried out by a suspected white supremacist who livestreamed the killings on Facebook, raising criticism of the role of social media in society.

 

"Big social media companies have a responsibility to take every possible action to ensure their technology products are not exploited by murderous terrorists," Australia's Prime Minister Scott Morrison said in a statement.

 

"It should not just be a matter of just doing the right thing. It should be the law."

 

If the law passes, it will be a criminal offence for companies, such as Facebook Inc and Alphabet's Google, which owns YouTube, not to "expeditiously" remove the "abhorrent violent content". Juries would decide whether the content was removed fast enough.

 

The government will present the law to the parliament next week - its expected final week before the federal election.

 

Morrison has also said that Australia has created a task force between government and social media companies to tackle the issue and wants to put it on the agenda for the summit of the G20 leaders in Japan in June.

 

The Australian government said it has met earlier in the week with social media companies, including Facebook, but that the outcome of the talks was not satisfactory.

 

"(They) did not present any immediate solutions to the issues arising out of the horror that occurred in Christchurch," Mitch Fifield, Australia's minister for communications, said in a statement on Saturday.

 

Facebook on Friday said it was exploring restrictions on who can access their live video-streaming service, depending on factors such as previous violations of the site's community standards.

 

Facebook earlier this week banned praise, support and representation of white nationalism and white separatism.

 

Should Australia move with the introduction of the new law, the individual fines of up to 10 percent of global revenues could be hefty.

 

-- © Copyright Reuters 2019-03-30

The devil is in the detail. Who defines "violent"?

We have already seen "some people" complaining that speech can be violence so, bit by bit, our speech is being restricted. The UK appears to be the biggest police state against jokes and comments against a certain group that might be deemed offensive.

Shocking to me that people actually WANT their own government to filter words on the internet. 

 

"We know whats best for you, dont read that. Youre just impressionable minions that are too stupid read and understand those words. Dont worry though, our words are good. You can read those." 

the left will define and enforce it of course 

A remark on moderation has been removed, also response to same.

Every expat who has chosen to live in Thailand has in principle accepted their are limits to freedom of expression they themselves are willing to accept.

3 minutes ago, Chomper Higgot said:

Every expat who has chosen to live in Thailand has in principle accepted their are limits to freedom of expression they themselves are willing to accept.

Yes indeed-they re not exactly freedom fighters are they?

 

Whilst slagging off their own countries they choose to live in one of the most heavily socially regulated places on Earth.

Edited March 30, 20197 yr by Odysseus123

Are they going to still sell violent video games? supposedly this is a trigger with some nuts, where's it going to stop? Sorry, I already had the parent experience, don't need another one.

19 minutes ago, elmrfudd said:

the left will define and enforce it of course 

The American gentleman doesn’t realise that is the current conservative government promposing and implementing this. 

9 hours ago, rooster59 said:

If the law passes, it will be a criminal offence for companies, such as Facebook Inc and Alphabet's Google, which owns YouTube, not to "expeditiously" remove the "abhorrent violent content". Juries would decide whether the content was removed fast enough.

Juries will decide?

 

Hmm, I’m all for trial by jury, but what guidelines are the jury going to be given on what constitutes a failure to remove “fast enough”? 

Edited March 30, 20197 yr by Bluespunk

13 hours ago, DoctorG said:

The devil is in the detail. Who defines "violent"?

We have already seen "some people" complaining that speech can be violence so, bit by bit, our speech is being restricted. The UK appears to be the biggest police state against jokes and comments against a certain group that might be deemed offensive.

The article is about Australia and not the UK.

3 hours ago, Benmart said:

The article is about Australia and not the UK.

Thank you for telling me that. ????

Australia is moving in the same direction.

 

Nanny state. And all these laws and rules are because some nutter reacted violently after watching a youtube clip or similar.

Knee jerk reaction as always and it's because of the nutters & do-gooders that the gov' has to be seen to be doing something.

16 hours ago, Chomper Higgot said:

Every expat who has chosen to live in Thailand has in principle accepted their are limits to freedom of expression they themselves are willing to accept.

Because we live in a foreign country, and so we (or at least some of us....) accept that our views are entirely irrelevant.

 

It's entirely different if we are living in our home countries where we expect to have freedom of expression.

 

This proposed law, as pointed out by other posters is purely a restriction on freedom of expression.

 

The first part of the OP that 'jumped out at me' was "Juries would decide whether the content was removed fast enough.".  ????

 

"fast enough" is the first clue that this proposed law is nanny state gone mad!

51 minutes ago, dick dasterdly said:

This proposed law, as pointed out by other posters is purely a restriction on freedom of expression.

They and you are mistaken. From the OP...

 

if they fail to quickly remove violent material from their platforms,