- Joined
- Aug 11, 2019
- Messages
- 8,945
- Reaction score
- 11,608
A very relevant topic in todays society unfortunately. I thought they’d get more power in light of media attention from Erin Molan, Anthony Seibold etc but I’ll always support free speech within reason too. We are lucky to live in a reasonably “free” country like Australia and shouldn’t take it for granted. Please don’t call me an ugly cow though ok
Only the most serious of abusive posts’ captured by adult cyber abuse scheme
Only the most serious abusive online content will be subject to new take down powers handed to the eSafety commissioner, with name-calling and character attacks unlikely to be captured under the adult cyber abuse scheme.
Online abuse will need to meet a threshold of intending to cause serious harm and be “menacing, harassing or offensive in all the circumstances” before the eSafety Commissioner can order it be taken down under the new scheme, which comes into effect on January 23.
eSafety Commissioner Julie Inman Grant said the bar for determining what constituted adult cyber abuse had been set deliberately high.
Calling someone a “ugly cow”, a “lying bigot”, accusing them of being a paedophile or using violent language such as “I hope you get bashed” are among the examples of abuse that will not meet threshold contained in new regulatory guidance on how the scheme will operate.
Calling someone a “ugly cow”, a “lying bigot”, accusing them of being a paedophile or using violent language such as “I hope you get bashed” are among the examples of abuse that will not meet threshold contained in new regulatory guidance on how the scheme will operate.
The eSafety Commissioner, Julie Inman Grant, who will release the guidance on Thursday, said the bar for determining what constituted adult cyber abuse had been set deliberately high, to ensure it did not stifle freedom of speech.
“We are talking here about the most serious of abusive posts, intended to cause serious psychological or physical harm,” said Ms Inman Grant.
“Serious harm could include material which sets out realistic threats, places people in real danger, is excessively malicious or is unrelenting.”
The types of cyber abuse captured by the scheme includes posts, comments, emails, messages, memes, images and videos.
The scheme will allow adults to report instances of serious online abuse to the eSafety Commissioner, who can then issue a take down notice to the online platform. The platform will have 24 hours to comply, with companies facing fines of up to $555,000 if they fail to act.
Federal Communications Minister Paul Fletcher said the scheme represented an expansion of the eSafety Commissioner’s remit from tackling cyber-bullying of children to adults “to make sure all Australians can access support when things go wrong online”.
The guidance makes clear that the eSafety Commissioner’s removal powers only come into effect if a complaint has been made directly to an online service provider and they have failed to remove the material.
It also outlines that serious harm includes psychological harm and distress “that goes beyond mere ordinary emotional reactions such as those of only distress, grief, fear or anger”. The eSafety Commissioner will consider each complaint on a case-by-case basis, with no limit to the factors that may be considered.
For content to meet the threshold of offensiveness it will need to be “likely to cause significant anger, significant resentment, outrage, disgust, or hatred” and do “more than simply hurt or wound a person’s feelings”.
The scheme does not cover defamatory material that causes purely reputational harm.
Content that will capture attention includes “doxing”, which is defined as revealing personal information to deliberately make someone feel unsafe, encouraging violence against someone including self harm, and posts aimed at generating “pile-on” attacks against people.
The commissioner will also look for behaviour which is aimed at targeting a known vulnerability of a person, with the guidance citing as an example evidence that a person has targeted someone with the intention to worsen their mental wellbeing while being aware of their mental health history.
The age of the person posting the content will be considered as a potential mitigating factor, but will not definitively rule out seeking take down action, the guidance states.
Only the most serious of abusive posts’ captured by adult cyber abuse scheme
Only the most serious abusive online content will be subject to new take down powers handed to the eSafety commissioner, with name-calling and character attacks unlikely to be captured under the adult cyber abuse scheme.
Online abuse will need to meet a threshold of intending to cause serious harm and be “menacing, harassing or offensive in all the circumstances” before the eSafety Commissioner can order it be taken down under the new scheme, which comes into effect on January 23.
eSafety Commissioner Julie Inman Grant said the bar for determining what constituted adult cyber abuse had been set deliberately high.
Calling someone a “ugly cow”, a “lying bigot”, accusing them of being a paedophile or using violent language such as “I hope you get bashed” are among the examples of abuse that will not meet threshold contained in new regulatory guidance on how the scheme will operate.
Calling someone a “ugly cow”, a “lying bigot”, accusing them of being a paedophile or using violent language such as “I hope you get bashed” are among the examples of abuse that will not meet threshold contained in new regulatory guidance on how the scheme will operate.
The eSafety Commissioner, Julie Inman Grant, who will release the guidance on Thursday, said the bar for determining what constituted adult cyber abuse had been set deliberately high, to ensure it did not stifle freedom of speech.
“We are talking here about the most serious of abusive posts, intended to cause serious psychological or physical harm,” said Ms Inman Grant.
“Serious harm could include material which sets out realistic threats, places people in real danger, is excessively malicious or is unrelenting.”
The types of cyber abuse captured by the scheme includes posts, comments, emails, messages, memes, images and videos.
The scheme will allow adults to report instances of serious online abuse to the eSafety Commissioner, who can then issue a take down notice to the online platform. The platform will have 24 hours to comply, with companies facing fines of up to $555,000 if they fail to act.
Federal Communications Minister Paul Fletcher said the scheme represented an expansion of the eSafety Commissioner’s remit from tackling cyber-bullying of children to adults “to make sure all Australians can access support when things go wrong online”.
The guidance makes clear that the eSafety Commissioner’s removal powers only come into effect if a complaint has been made directly to an online service provider and they have failed to remove the material.
It also outlines that serious harm includes psychological harm and distress “that goes beyond mere ordinary emotional reactions such as those of only distress, grief, fear or anger”. The eSafety Commissioner will consider each complaint on a case-by-case basis, with no limit to the factors that may be considered.
For content to meet the threshold of offensiveness it will need to be “likely to cause significant anger, significant resentment, outrage, disgust, or hatred” and do “more than simply hurt or wound a person’s feelings”.
The scheme does not cover defamatory material that causes purely reputational harm.
Content that will capture attention includes “doxing”, which is defined as revealing personal information to deliberately make someone feel unsafe, encouraging violence against someone including self harm, and posts aimed at generating “pile-on” attacks against people.
The commissioner will also look for behaviour which is aimed at targeting a known vulnerability of a person, with the guidance citing as an example evidence that a person has targeted someone with the intention to worsen their mental wellbeing while being aware of their mental health history.
The age of the person posting the content will be considered as a potential mitigating factor, but will not definitively rule out seeking take down action, the guidance states.
