Facebook asswipes
- Started
- Last post
- 47 Responses
- 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
- 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
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
- 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.
- omg0
Here ya go Melbourne... in case of crime in your neighborhood...
- i_monk0
This is really a thread?
- 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.
- jacklalane0
Do they not have trial by Judge only in Australia? In that case this info would have little bearing.
- omg0
I know it sucks that a life was lost, but here we see Facebook's free speech mantra, protecting all our rights to free speech as well. I don't think controlling these issues is going to bring that poor girl back to life. It should be the responsibility of the courts to bring proper justice.
- Not about 'bringing her back'. It's about respecting the law.BusterBoy
- d0mino0
omg is right. Need to adjust the justice system and courts to accomodate free speech/technology. Not adjust free speech.
- FB actions are allowing the jury pool to be tainted which means no fare trial which means the criminal can go free.tredesigns
- BusterBoy0
I'm sorry but this "free speech at all costs" is just crap. When social media directly impacts on sovereign laws, they need to be held accountable. If someone posted child porn, would that be allowed? Can't pick and choose which laws they choose to abide by.
- pfft reactionary crap
cannonball1978 - agree with you here BusterKiko
- pfft reactionary crap
- BusterBoy0
@cannon...so where do you draw the line mate? Are Facebook now the new moral arbiters of what is acceptable and what is not?
- MrT0
I don't agree with the frothing kangaroo court on Facebook, but why is it any different to the subjective, traditional media coverage? Surely the jury can not look at Facebook just as they can not read the newspapers or watch TV (which is a good idea in Aus anyway).
- Media owners can go to jail if they flout contempt laws.BusterBoy
- Beeswax0
Traditional media is a little more conscious about these kind of issues because they can get sued for declaring someone guilty before the verdict. Governments can't have this kind of enforcement over facebook and it's million users.
This is not a complex issue, is the trial over yet? No. So facebook should shut down those pages once they are warned. They don't want to do it just because they need to allocate specific departments for these kind of issues all over.
- BusterBoy0
It's not a question of whether a traditional media organisation may get sued. The fact is it is against the law in this country to publish much of what is being posted on Facebook in the wake of this. The bloke has been charged and a trial will follow...in the meantime everyone needs to follow the law.
- omg0
Are we supposed to shut down the entire internet til this gets resolved? Because somewhere, someone is going to talk about the case. You're suggesting that these type of news should be handled by traditional news media, and not the likes of people on Facebook. I'm sure that's what ABC and the rest of the news media out there would like you to think. They are trying to get the exclusive, and have persuaded you that people on Facebook is wrong. Wake up!!! These news media giants want to control the people, and Facebook is allowing free reign in thought in the city of Melbourne. Maybe you rather your truth only come from what you see and hear on TV, where voices aren't heard, only the sounds of news corporations feeding you their side of so-called truth.
- BusterBoy0
What I am saying is if there is a pending court case and all of a sudden a new Facebook page is launched entitled "Hang so and so" and publishes a whole raft of information on his past behaviour then we're moving into dangerous territory...especially when the police politely request they take the page down.
As I have said, they're happy to take down a page that has a breast feeding mother, or pornography so they are effectively deciding what is acceptable and what is not...and I sure as hell don't want them being the arbiters of stuff like this.
I understand the law needs to move with the times, and I'm sure the laws will probably take into account social media, but until such time as the law is changed, they should comply.
- GeorgesII0
like youtube/google saying no to take down the mohamed video,
facebook, should say no too,
don't set a precedent than complain later that they are infringing on your rights to free speech,- rubbish...completely different scenarioBusterBoy
- when is free speech acceptable for you?GeorgesII
- when it doesn't break the law...pretty simple.BusterBoy
- laws are not the same everywherespl33nidoru
- omg0
well since the police asked politely... but Is it possible that there aren't any laws governing Facebook at this time? Are we supposed to sit back and wait for courts to grant us permission , and until then, do what the police demands?
Perhaps since the girl isn't there to defend herself, it might make sense that other people do. At least they're spewing out relevant truth, I'd hope. I'm sure the police are more than happy for people to do the work for them. But in public, they can't side with the vigilante. Besides, aren't your court systems based on proven facts, rather than opinions from Facebook?
- Peter0
> It's not a question of whether a traditional media organisation may get sued. The fact is it is against the law in this country to publish...
"Traditionally" isn't it that the laws of the country of which the server resides in are the ones to be followed?
Piratebay, etc. comes to mind.