Australian laws to ban "violent videos", threatens jail for social media executives

Social media executives could be jailed and their companies fined billions of dollars if they fail to remove terrorist material like the Christchurch massacre live stream, under proposed new laws.

The Morrison Government is pledging to introduce the bill to Parliament next week after the killing of 50 people at two mosques was broadcast live on Facebook.

New laws could see social media bosses jailed for failing to combat terrorist content in wake of Christchurch shootings

This is starting to get a bit ridiculous now... it seems our PM Morrison has decided that despite Australia not being in the EU, we should try implementing similar stupid laws which target social media platforms and make them liable for what people share. I'm not sure why he even expects that foreign executives will be handed over, everything about this is just poorly thought out. There are so many invasive and stupid laws being made by our government recently, and people say almost nothing about it. I usually vote for the liberals because at least they have some sanity compared to the even more left leaning labour party, but it's now clear we don't really have any choice.

The bill would cover "abhorrent violent material", such as videos that showed terrorist attacks, murders or rapes.

Companies like Facebook and Google, which owns YouTube, would be forced to take down videos "expeditiously".

Attorney-General Christian Porter said juries would determine whether material was not removed quickly enough in each case.

While the legislation would not apply retrospectively, Mr Porter said he expected a jury would find Facebook guilty over the Christchurch video.

The phrase "abhorrent violent material" is vague enough to mean what ever they want it to mean. Would a video game or movie also be subject to these rules? What about all the other shooting videos already floating around the internet? What about terror attack videos like those from 9/11 which are all over the internet? I haven't watched the Christ Church video or even sought it out, but that doesn't mean I think no one should be able to see it. Maybe they want to do research or something, how should I know their reasons, watching a violent video doesn't automatically turn someone into a violent maniac. This reactionary approach to a mass shooting is so ridiculous and once again demonstrates the lack of technological understanding that politicians have.

Hmm how about you just ban social media, like China?

originally posted by: Lysergic
Hmm how about you just ban social media, like China?

Some times it feels like we're just a satellite state of China... while they scream about One Nation taking money from U.S. organizations they are taking millions, perhaps billions from Chinese organizations and selling out our country.

originally posted by: Lysergic
Hmm how about you just ban social media, like China?

China has "whats app", but now fb owns is so yes, you might be right.

originally posted by: ChaoticOrder

originally posted by: Lysergic
Hmm how about you just ban social media, like China?

Some times it feels like we're just a satellite state of China... while they scream about One Nation taking money from U.S. organizations they are taking millions, perhaps billions from Chinese organizations and selling out our country.

Most politicians are dirt bags and are anti- their country men.

Without those videos we would never be able to prove a damn thing.

There is a very good video out there that proves the gunman had at least one other working with him.

This legislation is actually aimed at the Q movement's ability to call on Anons as an intel asset.

This is also the thin edge of the wedge that leads to only being able to see approved information.

First they took over the media ... then they took the social platforms ... then they made bugging phones legal but only for themselves ... then they put cameras up all over the place ... and now there is a camera in my living room.

P

originally posted by: pheonix358
Without those videos we would never be able to prove a damn thing.

There is a very good video out there that proves the gunman had at least one other working with him.

This legislation is actually aimed at the Q movement's ability to call on Anons as an intel asset.

This is also the thin edge of the wedge that leads to only being able to see approved information.

First they took over the media ... then they took the social platforms ... then they made bugging phones legal but only for themselves ... then they put cameras up all over the place ... and now there is a camera in my living room.

P

I think it is now best to live in the jungles of the mind of yesterdays.

a reply to: ChaoticOrder

Exactly, very poorly thought out on the PMs part.
Some Jihadi-John posts a video of his weekend idiocy and the PM thinks Al Jazeera will hand over their execs lol

Australia is a 3rd world communist #hole. All the 3rd world scum have destroyed what it once was. All this has been supported with orders and cash from Communist China - the blight of humanity. The AU PM thinks he can arrest foriegn execs who are worth a million times than he is, well I've got news for him. Put simply, don't piss off anyone with spare cash to burn.

originally posted by: Macdon
Australia is a 3rd world communist #hole. All the 3rd world scum have destroyed what it once was. All this has been supported with orders and cash from Communist China - the blight of humanity. The AU PM thinks he can arrest foriegn execs who are worth a million times than he is, well I've got news for him. Put simply, don't piss off anyone with spare cash to burn.

I agree with you. They 've been reading too much Japanese manga.

a reply to: ChaoticOrder

"This video is not available in your country" comes to mind.

Threaten the CEO with jail time over content they have no control over, watch that website block your entire country.


Gonna get yourself uninvited from the internet over there, guys...

a reply to: ChaoticOrder

I find cat videos violent.



(DBCowboy crashes the internet. . . . . )

a reply to: ChaoticOrder

Step 1, ban abhorrent material. It's abhorrent, so we agree.
Step 2, decide what is abhorrent and change the meaning to suit your purposes and over time amass more and more power.

a reply to: ChaoticOrder

Maybe 'blackouts' will become more common? When some act of terror occurs, youtube, facebook, twitter, wattsapp and other sites are forced to shut down and to cause a blackout till it's safe that no vids can be shared!

I was forced to download a VPN after Christchurch.
Australia has blocked a ton of sites and Im pissed about it.

Who do they think they are protecting and what exactly from?

originally posted by: IkNOwSTuff
I was forced to download a VPN after Christchurch.
Australia has blocked a ton of sites and Im pissed about it.

Who do they think they are protecting and what exactly from?

They're protecting themselves from their citizens.

Can't let people know what's going on, if they know the action they can question the reaction

Australia is going to ban Game of Thrones?

Sacrilege.

a reply to: pheonix358

Good points.

Notice that ....they make it sound so fair "juries would determine"

Attorney-General Christian Porter said juries would determine whether material was not removed quickly enough in each case.

The bigger takeaway is that you would need some expensive lawyers to fight the Govt. Once charged the whole apparatus of the State is against you.

Look up some of the actions of our intelligence agencies in neighbouring countries getting Intel for Aust companies so they have a better chance at winning tenders. They rationalize it as being in the National Interest. And yet these companies whilst maybe employing a handful of Australians use contractors and repatriate their profits to lower tax countries.

What a joke.

We've seen what Macron did to the protesters in France - think our Govt wouldn't use those tactics in a SHTF scenario?

Look what heppened when Indonesia invaded East Timor


en.wikipedia.org...

In 2007, an Australian coroner ruled that they had been deliberately killed by Indonesian special forces soldiers.[2] The official Indonesian version is that the men were killed by cross-fire during the battle for the town. According to The Economist, the Australian Government has never challenged this view in order to avoid damaging relations with Indonesia.[3]

After the ruling, newly elected Prime Minister of Australia Kevin Rudd declared "those responsible should be held to account... You can't just sweep this to one side."[4][5] However, no meaningful action was taken after he was elected, and Rudd refused to visit the gravesite of the slain journalists in 2008.[

a reply to: ChaoticOrder

I know the link below is from New Zealand but censorship is censorship:

www.youtube.com...

It's scary how this guy (and the rest of his ilk worldwide) appear truly genuine about "protecting" people. In this perspective, the citizens of his fine country are apparently unable to resist the ramblings of a psychopath. Once they hear/see it, BAM, they are acting on it. Pavlov's dog all over the place.

I sure hope Australia can hold on a little longer. TPTB are nervous. They do not like the untermensch
communicating. Must...control...internet!!!

originally posted by: a325nt
a reply to: ChaoticOrder

Threaten the CEO with jail time over content they have no control over, watch that website block your entire country.

Somehow I get the feeling this is what Morrison wants. Then when it happens, he will be like "hey don't blame me, YouTube did it, I was just trying to make people safer". And how much money is it going to cost to essentially police the internet? YouTube clearly cannot even properly examine each video with a massive number of employees and powerful AI algorithms. It's just an excuse to throw more money down the drain and cause the cost of living to rise even further.