Facebook asswipes
- Started
- Last post
- 47 Responses
- animatedgif0
"I think an organisation of this size that wants to operate with no national boundaries MUST have a dedicated unit to moderate this type of shit."
Why is it Facebooks responsibility to ensure the Australian legal system is unbiased?
- If they have operations here, then they need to obey the law...pretty simple really.BusterBoy
- pango0
facebook would have taken down posts in no time if the contant is about exposing corporate or government conspiracy. Facebook has no interest in protecting free speech. They only protect selected interest.
true story. One of my friend's post about Monsanto kept being taken down by facebook.
- BusterBoy0
I think an organisation of this size that wants to operate with no national boundaries MUST have a dedicated unit to moderate this type of shit. I'm sick and tired of this free speech at all costs mantra...there are times when common decency needs to be prevail and as much as I don't like Facebook being the arbiter, at least when it's brought to their attention they need to act quicker.
Not sure there's an easy or quick solution, but Governments really need to wake up and put some more thought into how the law needs to keep up with situations like this.
- Totally. An individual visiting another country must respect local laws and traditions - why not online organisations that feature the opinions of individuals?bobkat
- bobkat0
Agreed Buster Boy.
Sadly I think part of the porblem is that Communications Law is not keeping up with technology (especially at the international level). There is such a grey area with regards to the law and social media, the rights of the user, site owner etc. at a national lever, I can't even imagine how it would work at an international level...- I think its people not the law.Always few bungholes messing it up for everyone.yurimon
- BusterBoy0
Facebook have finally relented and removed the hate pages that could have jeopardised the accused man's trial. Why it took this long is worrying but at least they've done the right thing.
- jacklalane0
Do they not have trial by Judge only in Australia? In that case this info would have little bearing.
- mikotondria30
So the call to have the page removed is on the fear that once it gets to court, the defence will point to the pages and claim that those pages make the jury unable to decide only on the evidence given in court ? Surely that's a matter of jury selection then ? Question one for potential jurors: Have you seen the facebook page where someone thinks the defendent is guilty ? Yes. Question 2: Have you seen another facebook page, or read or heard another opinion that he is innocent. Yes. Yes I have. To what extent have these other people's opinions and information contained in them colored your resolved to only judge this case on the legally admissable evidence the prosecution will be presenting.
a - a great deal (you are dismissed, next juror please)
b - not at all. Thank you, please take your seat.
- i_monk0
This is really a thread?
- omg0
Here ya go Melbourne... in case of crime in your neighborhood...
- omg0
Obviously you people want to turn the city of Melbourne into a police state. Be careful of the thought police on your way out.
- detritus0
Weird how there's so much concern about the collective's sleep-walking into demi-fascistic police states, when clearly a lot of people seem to want to giddily embrace it.
Corporations may in some countries have similar rights to humans, but that doesn't make them humans.
They have different priorities and so should not therefore be viewed as societal stakeholders at the expense of the societies that support them.
- when have you ever experience censorship as a good thing? when history shows the opposite.omg
- 'History shows the opposite' really? That's quite a grandly-sweeping statement. Care to back it up, entirely?detritus
- Anyway, I'm not going to bother labouring this with you - you're either ignorant or playing devil's advocate.detritus
- teh0
America is the leader in the media being the judge and the jury. We see ti all the time where the media makes a person guilty, on the run, missing or captured and already made guilty even before the facts are in, the trial is over and the jury has decided a persons reputation and livelihood is ruined.
I have seen in locally where I live done 2x where a man and women's life ruined by the community and the media even before all the facts were in.
- detritus0
That really is an asinine, blinkered view of things, omg.
All they'd be asking is for a local respect of local laws - it'd be far-fetched to imagine someone in America bothering to set up a potentially contentious page, poyentially inflaming an international dispute. This is not what is being discussed here.
Also, this is wider-reaching than this one case — sure, in this instance there's [presumably] plenty of physical evidence to support a conviction — but what about all the cases where there isn't?
.
What I don't understand is how anyone, especially from another country, can feel so righteous and aggrieved that a corporate entity is being asked to respect another nation's laws ... what's your reasoning?
Frankly it smacks of unthinking fanboyism.
Think before you speak.
- tl;dr - the world is a bit bigger and varied than the average American's back yard.detritus
- you should re-think yourselfomg
- It's ok if you don't get it™detritus
- Actualy, it's not, but whatever.detritus
- obviously all of internet belongs to Melbourne.omg
- Dude, I don't want to be a bitch towards you, but your thinking is totally ass about face here.detritus
- here you go...
http://www.personal.…omg
- omg0
I'm sure vaginal scrapings, semen stains, fingerprints, and past arrest convictions should already prove a man's innocence and show a little previous character.
However, to keep the 4 million people of Melbourne stupid, so that they can have 10 people make an unbiased decision is somewhat extreme.
I should point out that Melbourne may have jurisdiction in its country, but not the rest of the universal digital world. Censoring content would be a punishment to the entire world, when instead they could focus on building a proper justice system.
- pig0
@chossy
Calm down mate. I'm not standing in any camp, don't lump me with baggage.
I genuinely don't understand the issue here. Forget the idiosyncratic Aus/free speech laws.
I'm saying these pages are as common as dust.
If material about his priors has been released that's surely illegal in it's own right, and should be prosecuted as such/removed from the page.
So - remove individual parts of the page that obviously break theft/privacy laws like this (ie. releasing sensitive documents).
But don't remove what is basically mob opinion. People who like/share these pages are morons, but they should be allowed to be morons regardless. How impressionable are the Australian public? Can one Facebook page seriously swing a trial?
Maybe they should only give Wifi connections to people who've had a full psychiatric evaluation.
- CALLES0
what? they find out the guy wasnt single
- GeorgesII0
Am I the only one who read the article,
So they used facebook to help find the criminal, but now wants facebook to close the page.
so they're not actually fearing for a mistrial but fearing a vigilante could take upon himself to kill the main suspect before the end of the trial,
http://www.abc.net.au/news/2012-…
----
"Though social media's been enormously helpful in this investigation, it's also been very, very difficult and we had cause to speak to Facebook over the weekend and ask them to take a particular site down," he said."Now, they've refused to do that.
"We've all got a social responsibility. Facebook is part of our community and I would have thought that it would have only been reasonable."
"We've got to remember that no matter how horrible this crime is, this gentleman has got to be afforded a fair trial.
"It's not for Facebook pages or anyone else to be taking justice into their own hands."
- detritus0
Corporatism vs. Established rule of lw that much of the world has looked up to for 200 years?
Pfft, I'm with the Americans on this one.
Whilst we're at it, there's plenty of wall-space in courts — plenty of space for sponsorhsip opportunities, right? I hear you Americans have televised court judgments, you guys could add loads of cash to the government coffers.
Oop.. sorry, you prefer to have corporations dictate law... hmm... just who would that sponsorship money go to then?
Hey! Facebook Investors!
Christ, this is win-win - we could even set up apps that could allow Facebook users to vote on who they think is guilty in a court - $1 a vote, loadsamoney.
Who needs judges and juries when we have Facebook?
*laughs all the way to bank*
- chossy0
lowimpakt, You'll never convince them, they'll never see sense.
People flatly refuse to act for the common good. They see this as an atrocity against their freedom of speech while quite extraordinarily loosing sight of the primary reason the police would like the facebook page to be deleted.
- yes. i'm as liberal as they come, but some people don't have common sense.sine
- lowimpakt0
@pig
if his lawyers argue that he is "prejudiced" by the content of these facebook pages they can claim he has been denied a fair trial and they could get the case dropped.
"subjudice" is the important word to be aware of. It basically means that while a case is underway. In some countries it is important that cases are dealt with carefully in the media etc. because a defendant can be seen to be prejudiced.
In most cases this prejudice would involve the jury being unduly influenced by reports in the media that may or may not be wrong.
In this instance, these facebook pages are posting messages about the defendant that could easily influence a jury's decision. He is innocent until proven guilty and he has a right to a fair trial.
so going back to my point earlier, the people posting these facebook pages are too stupid to understand the possible implications of their actions.