Evan Bryce Riddle

FILM - TV - MEDIA

Haters can hate, but not in AUS

I found myself wondering during this week’s Networked Media symposium if in fact I had stepped it a Law lecture. It seemed that the hour (time flies when you’re having fun, right?) was an episode of Suits or Boston Legal, with the talk of defamation, copyright, patenting, liability, legalities, and more complex big words.

We discussed freedom of speech in an online environment. In Australia, you can not post offensive material online, whether it be text, video, images, anything. But offensive is ambiguous, right? I thought so, and it is. The intent is not what matters. It is the audience’s perception that defines the legalities and is really matters. If someone finds your material offensive, that’s the end of the story and it is as of that moment offensive. The excuse “it isn’t offensive because I don’t think it is”, or “I uploaded it as a joke” means nothing. So it’s not the intent, but the reception which deems it derogatory.  This is different in the United States and other countries, where citizens have the right to their own online opinion.

It is not a crime until someone recognises it, just as with copyright: It’s not a crime until someone enforces their copyright. For example, Disney have chosen not to target over 60000 covers of Frozen’s let it go. They see it as a growing fan culture, rather than ill intent to copy or sell.

Copyright infringement or offensive material would result in a civil legal battle. However when it comes to racism online, it becomes a criminal case, not a civil one. There is no such thing as freedom of speech in Australian Media law. Then this arrises another debate, where is the line between offensive opinion and critique? Critiquing is usually fine, not in the sense of being critical, but basing the writing on facts or a deeper level of thinking.

Personally I stay away from online conflict. I don’t want to risk trouble down the road. If you’re hating on someone, write it in a diary, vent to your friends. But I don’t think posting it online for the world to see is the right thing to do – it could ruin their career or even their life.

I share a similar view of keeping out of trouble with copyrighted material, and was interested in how I could be affected by all this legal speak. The bottom line is that the publisher is ultimately responsible for the content on their site or blog. You post it, you’re responsible for it. Even if you don’t post it, you can still be responsible for it. Prior to spam filtering, comments would spam inappropriate links about gambling, pornography, etc. Even though the publisher didn’t post it, he was still liable because it appeared on his site and he didn’t turn off the comments option. So, better be careful!

Print Friendly, PDF & Email

2 comments for “Haters can hate, but not in AUS

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Skip to toolbar