It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
Although a common legal framework would eliminate jurisdictional hurdles to facilitate the law enforcement of borderless cyber crimes, a complete realization of a common legal framework may not be possible. Transposing Convention provisions into domestic law is difficult especially if it requires the incorporation of substantive expansions that run counter to constitutional principles. For instance, the United States may not be able to criminalize all the offenses relating to child pornography that are stated in the Convention, specifically the ban on virtual child pornography, because of its First Amendment's free speech principles.
The Racial Discrimination Act 1975 forbids hate speech on several grounds. The Act makes it "unlawful for a person to do an act, otherwise than in private, if the act is reasonably likely, in all the circumstances, to offend, insult, humiliate or intimidate another person or a group of people; and the act is done because of the race, colour or national or ethnic origin of the other person, or of some or all of the people in the group."
Only speech that poses an imminent danger of unlawful action, where the speaker has the intention to incite such action and there is the likelihood that this will be the consequence of his or her speech, may be restricted and punished by that law.
originally posted by: KaibaTheJedi
This is idiocy and madness. So does this mean every Internet troll will be arrested? Looks like big brother and the thought police is watching, and saying "don't you dare say anything we don't like"!
There's a difference between being a troll and a criminal, and this is an overreaction by the police. If he threatened someone then take him in, but this is a no.
Those States that have ratified the additional protocol are required to criminalize the dissemination of racist and xenophobic material through computer systems, as well as threats and insults motivated by racism or xenophobia.
I bet you are familiar with no more than 1% of the laws in your country.
sticks and stones may break my bones, but names will never hurt me.
originally posted by: Benevolent Heretic
a reply to: SaturnFX
I see what you mean. And I would agree that it's an invasive law.
I heard this the other day and loved it:
A man asked a judge in a courtroom, "Your honor, what would happen if I said you were an idiot?"
The judge replied, "I'd hold you in contempt of court, of course!"
"OK", the man said. "What would happen if I just THOUGHT you were an idiot?"
Judge: "There's nothing I can or should do about what you THINK. You have the right to think whatever you want."
Man: "Well, your honor, in that case, I THINK you're an idiot!"
I really dislike the term "snowflake". It gets applied to people who so much as voice the idea that they feel offended about something. It's WAY overused. People just throw it out there to be... well... offensive. We all feel offended at times and there's nothing wrong with saying so.
I mean - how many here are voicing the fact that they're "offended by" this law? Are we all special snowflakes because we're offended?
Passing laws that imprison people who offend you with words makes one a snowflake.
originally posted by: ChesterJohn
a reply to: Dark Ghost
no freedom of speech on the internet that is what it will come to.
originally posted by: thinline
What is a racist statement?
That's the rub
_______ is an amazing sport, ________ people have been hiding this.
A black man live tweeted after watching his first hockey game. He thought it was an amazing sport and tweeted some form of white people was hiding this from black people. Not only did most hockey fans laugh at this, St. Louis Blues even brought him to a game
Is a white man, after watching his first NBA game twitted. Basketball is a great sport, why did black people had this this. Would black nba fans retweet and repost the comments in a jovial way? Would the NBA team invite him to a game? I am not only saying it wouldn't happen, but the guy in some countries could get arrested.
originally posted by: kaylaluv
I am not familiar with the laws in Australia, but I'm assuming there are laws that deal with this type of incident, or the authorities would not have charged him. If you live in a country, it would behoove you to be familiar with its laws. If you are dumb enough to break one of those laws, then you deserve what you get. Don't like the laws? Work through your political representatives to get them changed -- or move to a country whose laws you like better.
ISLAMABAD, Pakistan — A powerful constitutional body in Pakistan proposed legislation last week that would allow husbands to "lightly beat" their wives who decline sex or refuse to wear what their mates prefer.
The Council of Islamic Ideology says it has to finalize the 160-page draft before it is sent to lawmakers in the Punjab province, the country's most populated region, for approval.
As well as beatings for wives who decline to have sex with their husbands, the document also advocates men use "limited violence" on spouses who do not bathe after intercourse or during menstruation.
Snowflake is just dogwhistle for progressive - it doesn't have any usefulness past clubbing the other side repeatedly over the head with it and hoping they'll retaliate
The thing about dog-whistles is only dogs can hear it. It's no strange wonder you use that specious argument quite often.
originally posted by: Dark Ghost
Does your attitude extend to countries such as Pakistan?