7 ms·

Seems like a dodged bullet. There is little to no constitutional protection for free speech in Australia and defamation is routinely employed successfully in fa

by zmmmmm 4y ago

Seems like a dodged bullet. There is little to no constitutional protection for free speech in Australia and defamation is routinely employed successfully in fairly speculative situations (for example, politicians, as public figures, suing journalists they don't like). Every time a question comes up like this it is genuinely an unknown what the court will do and no clear precedent suggesting they weigh potential broad impact of decisions heavily in their judgement. So this could easily have come down the other way and we could have a precedent suggesting potential liability for literally anybody who links to anything.

BLKNSLVR 4y ago
As an Australian, I'm actually a little bit surprised that, seemingly, common sense has prevailed over what appeared to be the preference of the politicians.
- zmmmmm 4y ago
  yes, it's depressing ... perhaps we just don't hear about the "common sense" ones but perception wise it feels like common sense is the exception rather than the rule for sure.
  - sandebert 4y ago
    Common sense isn't.
    - BLKNSLVR 4y ago
      I'd rather be right than popular, and I often am.
      - blooalien 4y ago
        Sadly, these days being right is often a quick path to being unpopular. :(
        MichaelZuo 4y ago
        These days? Ever heard of Socrates?
  - caf 4y ago
    Uncontroversial decisions don't make the news, as a rule.
- paranoidrobot 4y ago
  Take a look at our (Australian) anti-spam rules and how they were exploited by Clive Palmer, Craig Kelly and the United Australia Party to spam a huge percentage of Australian mobile numbers, for months[1]. Because the messages were from a political party, they were exempt from anti-spam rules, and despite the protests from people sick of getting the messages - there was no requirement for any ability to unsubscribe. [1] https://www.abc.net.au/triplej/programs/hack/craig-kelly-uap-clive-palmer-text-message-sms/13524840 https://www.abc.net.au/triplej/programs/hack/craig-kelly-uap...
  - sumedh 4y ago
    Can Android and iOS block such messages if large number of users report that its spam.
    - Natsu 4y ago
      In this vein, my phone helpfully lists a lot of spam calls as "Scam Likely" but I've yet to figure out how to make it just send those calls straight to voicemail instead of letting them ring through since I don't want to talk to scammers at all.
      - beeboop 4y ago
        Same, I also wish there was a way to just block all calls from numbers not in my address book. Would also be great to not let "scam likely" numbers leave voicemails because they always do.
        paranoidrobot 4y ago
        > Same, I also wish there was a way to just block all calls from numbers not in my address book. Depending on your phone/dialling app, you can already do this. For me on a Pixel 3a, using the default Google Dialler I go to the Dialler app (where you dial numbers from), tap the three dots, settings, Blocked Numbers and there's a toggle "Unknown - block calls from unidentified callers". iPhone has something similar, and I think Samsung's dialler also does too. From the Parent Commenter: > my phone helpfully lists a lot of spam calls as "Scam Likely" but I've yet to figure out how to make it just send those calls straight to voicemail Similar to my other reply, you may be able to do this with the right phone/dialling app. Again, for the Pixel 3a with the default Google Dialler: tap the three dots, settings, Caller ID and Spam, and there are three toggles. See Calller and Spam ID. This shows if a caller is suspected as spam. Filter spam calls. This rejects calls from suspected spammers (your carrier's normal rejected call handling then applies - i.e if you normally reject a call and it goes to Voicemail, then this is what will happen) Verified calls. This allows companies which participate in the Verified Caller program to send the business information/reason for calling to your phone when they ring.
- nl 4y ago
  As another Australian, I'm unclear why you think politicians preferred the opposite outcome. The TL;DR of the case is that a lawyer involved in some criminal gang cases sued Google because the reports by newspapers about him were available in Google search results. I don't think many Australian politicians would take the side of the lawyer in this case.
  - ako 4y ago
    The fact that a lawyer thought he had a chance in court with this case makes you wonder...
    - caf 4y ago
      He in fact succeeded in the claim at both the Supreme Court of Victoria and the Court of Appeal. This ruling is from the final appellate court.
  - BLKNSLVR 4y ago
    This was my interpretation of attaching the concept of 'publisher' to Google in relation to the recent-ish "news" aggregation debacle whereby Google and Facebook were eventually made to pay news companies for linking to their articles in an oh-so-obviously punitive pursuit by the Australian Government of the day protecting their, umm, "political campaign contributors".* Someone else commented that this is a very 'thin' interpretation, and so there may be no implications to the above. Were there to be any implications, however, they would most certainly go against the above 'protection payments' being enforceable.* *Personal opinion, do not misinterpret as fact, please do your own research to misinterpret in your own, personal way.
    - nl 4y ago
      > This was my interpretation of attaching the concept of 'publisher' to Google in relation to the recent-ish "news" aggregation debacle whereby Google and Facebook were eventually made to pay news companies for linking to their articles in an oh-so-obviously punitive pursuit by the Australian Government of the day protecting their, umm, "political campaign contributors". Sure, but that's a very different issue to this one. The wacky "make big tech pay" thing is dumb populism but appears pretty unrelated.
- scaredginger 4y ago
  I don't know that it's that simple. The point that Australia's defamation laws probably allow for overreach is hard to argue against, but at the same time, I don't think we should give companies free rein. Search engine companies undeniably influence what they present; in some cases, through manual interference. How much would they have to interfere before they could be considered a publisher? Arguably, there should be some system of legal accountability here, but the law is behind the times, as it always is (especially in Australia)
jaimex2 4y ago
Free speech needs some love in our laws for sure. Basically no media outlet in Australia allows comments unless they have a moderator (they never do) since this little gem. > High Court rules media liable for Facebook comments on their stories https://eresources.hcourt.gov.au/downloadPdf/2021/HCA/27 https://eresources.hcourt.gov.au/downloadPdf/2021/HCA/27
- nl 4y ago
  That seems entirely reasonable. They were publishing the comments on their website with the story and the comments were defamatory. Why shouldn't they be found liable? Free speech shouldn't mean someone is free from the consequences of that speech.
  - usednet 4y ago
    That is not what free speech means. Why should the publisher be liable for the posts of their commenters? If that were the case worldwide, we would essentially see the end of communication on the internet.
    - caf 4y ago
      Because they're participating in the dissemination of those posts? If you send a defamatory "letter to the editor" to a traditional newspaper and they publish it, they'll be on the hook as well.
      - mikebenfield 4y ago
        So if I defame someone in this comment, you believe Y Combinator should be held liable?
        Normille 4y ago
        Dalewyn 4y ago
deleted 4y ago
[deleted]

by zmmmmm 4y ago

BLKNSLVR 4y ago

As an Australian, I'm actually a little bit surprised that, seemingly, common sense has prevailed over what appeared to be the preference of the politicians.

zmmmmm 4y ago
yes, it's depressing ... perhaps we just don't hear about the "common sense" ones but perception wise it feels like common sense is the exception rather than the rule for sure.
- sandebert 4y ago
  Common sense isn't.
  - BLKNSLVR 4y ago
    I'd rather be right than popular, and I often am.
    - blooalien 4y ago
      Sadly, these days being right is often a quick path to being unpopular. :(
      - MichaelZuo 4y ago
        These days? Ever heard of Socrates?
- caf 4y ago
  Uncontroversial decisions don't make the news, as a rule.
paranoidrobot 4y ago
Take a look at our (Australian) anti-spam rules and how they were exploited by Clive Palmer, Craig Kelly and the United Australia Party to spam a huge percentage of Australian mobile numbers, for months[1]. Because the messages were from a political party, they were exempt from anti-spam rules, and despite the protests from people sick of getting the messages - there was no requirement for any ability to unsubscribe. [1] https://www.abc.net.au/triplej/programs/hack/craig-kelly-uap-clive-palmer-text-message-sms/13524840 https://www.abc.net.au/triplej/programs/hack/craig-kelly-uap...
- sumedh 4y ago
  Can Android and iOS block such messages if large number of users report that its spam.
  - Natsu 4y ago
    In this vein, my phone helpfully lists a lot of spam calls as "Scam Likely" but I've yet to figure out how to make it just send those calls straight to voicemail instead of letting them ring through since I don't want to talk to scammers at all.
    - beeboop 4y ago
      Same, I also wish there was a way to just block all calls from numbers not in my address book. Would also be great to not let "scam likely" numbers leave voicemails because they always do.
      - paranoidrobot 4y ago
        > Same, I also wish there was a way to just block all calls from numbers not in my address book. Depending on your phone/dialling app, you can already do this. For me on a Pixel 3a, using the default Google Dialler I go to the Dialler app (where you dial numbers from), tap the three dots, settings, Blocked Numbers and there's a toggle "Unknown - block calls from unidentified callers". iPhone has something similar, and I think Samsung's dialler also does too. From the Parent Commenter: > my phone helpfully lists a lot of spam calls as "Scam Likely" but I've yet to figure out how to make it just send those calls straight to voicemail Similar to my other reply, you may be able to do this with the right phone/dialling app. Again, for the Pixel 3a with the default Google Dialler: tap the three dots, settings, Caller ID and Spam, and there are three toggles. See Calller and Spam ID. This shows if a caller is suspected as spam. Filter spam calls. This rejects calls from suspected spammers (your carrier's normal rejected call handling then applies - i.e if you normally reject a call and it goes to Voicemail, then this is what will happen) Verified calls. This allows companies which participate in the Verified Caller program to send the business information/reason for calling to your phone when they ring.
nl 4y ago
As another Australian, I'm unclear why you think politicians preferred the opposite outcome. The TL;DR of the case is that a lawyer involved in some criminal gang cases sued Google because the reports by newspapers about him were available in Google search results. I don't think many Australian politicians would take the side of the lawyer in this case.
- ako 4y ago
  The fact that a lawyer thought he had a chance in court with this case makes you wonder...
  - caf 4y ago
    He in fact succeeded in the claim at both the Supreme Court of Victoria and the Court of Appeal. This ruling is from the final appellate court.
- BLKNSLVR 4y ago
  This was my interpretation of attaching the concept of 'publisher' to Google in relation to the recent-ish "news" aggregation debacle whereby Google and Facebook were eventually made to pay news companies for linking to their articles in an oh-so-obviously punitive pursuit by the Australian Government of the day protecting their, umm, "political campaign contributors".* Someone else commented that this is a very 'thin' interpretation, and so there may be no implications to the above. Were there to be any implications, however, they would most certainly go against the above 'protection payments' being enforceable.* *Personal opinion, do not misinterpret as fact, please do your own research to misinterpret in your own, personal way.
  - nl 4y ago
    > This was my interpretation of attaching the concept of 'publisher' to Google in relation to the recent-ish "news" aggregation debacle whereby Google and Facebook were eventually made to pay news companies for linking to their articles in an oh-so-obviously punitive pursuit by the Australian Government of the day protecting their, umm, "political campaign contributors". Sure, but that's a very different issue to this one. The wacky "make big tech pay" thing is dumb populism but appears pretty unrelated.
scaredginger 4y ago
I don't know that it's that simple. The point that Australia's defamation laws probably allow for overreach is hard to argue against, but at the same time, I don't think we should give companies free rein. Search engine companies undeniably influence what they present; in some cases, through manual interference. How much would they have to interfere before they could be considered a publisher? Arguably, there should be some system of legal accountability here, but the law is behind the times, as it always is (especially in Australia)

jaimex2 4y ago

Free speech needs some love in our laws for sure. Basically no media outlet in Australia allows comments unless they have a moderator (they never do) since this little gem. > High Court rules media liable for Facebook comments on their stories https://eresources.hcourt.gov.au/downloadPdf/2021/HCA/27 https://eresources.hcourt.gov.au/downloadPdf/2021/HCA/27

nl 4y ago
That seems entirely reasonable. They were publishing the comments on their website with the story and the comments were defamatory. Why shouldn't they be found liable? Free speech shouldn't mean someone is free from the consequences of that speech.
- usednet 4y ago
  That is not what free speech means. Why should the publisher be liable for the posts of their commenters? If that were the case worldwide, we would essentially see the end of communication on the internet.
  - caf 4y ago
    Because they're participating in the dissemination of those posts? If you send a defamatory "letter to the editor" to a traditional newspaper and they publish it, they'll be on the hook as well.
    - mikebenfield 4y ago
      So if I defame someone in this comment, you believe Y Combinator should be held liable?
      - Normille 4y ago
      - Dalewyn 4y ago

deleted 4y ago

[deleted]