Sign in. It’s quick, free and it’s up to you.
An account is an optional way to support the work we do. Find out more.
I WANT TO address Lorraine Higgins recent comments about her online malicious communications bill.
I’ve been involved with Boards.ie for 17 years since setting it up and I remain a director of the company to this day. I’ve seen more than my fair share of abuse, vitriol and hate in my time. Often directed at myself or the staff here. Let’s get one thing straight from the start, the abuse Senator Higgins has received is utterly unacceptable. End of.
My problems lie with Senator Higgins’ bill. It is ill conceived and ham-fisted. It tries to deal with complex social problems through a blunt and poorly defined legal instrument.
Let’s keep this fact based and look closely at the proposition. The bill consists of two main parts.
The photo of you cuddling your ex
The first part addresses encouragement to suicide and self-harm along with a poor attempt to cover “revenge-porn”. It’s hard to argue with the intention of any of that. Actually look closer, “explicit content” is defined as “images, video or sound of a sexual or intimate nature”. Intimate? Hhmmm… that photo of you and your ‘ex’ cuddling that you posted last year on Facebook? Surely that’s not… nah, that’s daft. No one would… would they? Would (s)he?
Victims of revenge porn want a method of resolution. Some way to get the stuff taken down. This bill offers nothing like that. The rest of us want protection from bad actors and broad, ill-defined laws. Laws I would contend, should rarely rely on the phrase “surely that’s not what they meant”.
The second part is where the bill moves from “a bit daft” to “proper shouty crackers”. Bear with me here, this will blow your mind. Under the heading “Malicious Electronic Communications” we find the definition of “malicious” to be an “electronic communication regarding another” which “intentionally or recklessly causes alarm, distress or harm to the other”.
In legal terms, we just lost cabin pressure.
Malicious messages shared online
Now admittedly you must “persistently share” your malicious message but a definition of “persistently” was not included in the bill. Then again neither were definitions for “Alarm”, “Distress” or “Harm”.
Look closer though. “Electronic communication regarding another”. Not “to another”… just “regarding another”.
This isn’t about someone like Senator Lorraine Higgins being ‘sent’ a distressing or alarming message. This covers any message regarding someone anywhere public by anyone to anyone.
Better not alarm or distress or harm
This bill prioritises other peoples’ “alarm or distress” over your communications not just TO them but also ABOUT them. Don’t like what Joan Burton is doing with the water charges? Want to write something on independent media about what you think of that? Better not alarm or distress or harm her!
This is the core of my issue with the bill. It’s not just that almost all the agreeable parts of it are already covered by other laws. It’s not just that it’s utterly unenforceable with our current justice system. It’s not just that it’s so vague and fluffy. It’s that it’s so ill-defined and over-reaching that its interpretation will inevitably have to be left to judges.
Leaving anything to judges is a bad idea in general. This overly broad and poorly worded bill is a god-send to people who like to bully others into silence. Ironic that eh?!
Would Mairia Cahill have been allowed to hammer her story out there under this new law? Possibly yes. Could she have been sure of that? Hell no! Could a lawyer build a case around it causing distress and harm to Gerry Adams? You betcha!
Issues already covered by law
This bill will do very little to fulfil its stated aims. Where it does get it right its already covered by existing law (law which is already not being enforced). Where it gets it wrong (and a cynic might say deliberately wrong since it will massively benefit politicians as it currently is written), it creates a chilling effect with a dreadful piece of pseudo legalese.
Please kill this bill. In its place the Dáil could action the recent report from the Internet Content Advisory Committee rather than nonsense from loose-cannon Senators.
If you want to read about this bill and cyber-bullying I can recommend no one better than Dr Ciarán McMahon who works in CyberPsychology for the Royal College of Surgeons, Fergal Crehan who is a barrister at law in this area and Dr TJ McIntyre, a lecturer in the School of Law, University College Dublin and chairman of civil rights group Digital Rights Ireland. His views on it are here.
Tom Murphy is a founder of Boards.ie, a site recently described in the Irish parliament as a “legal subversion of the state”. He is a frequent commentator on online social issues. He is old, narky and shouts at lawyers to get off his lawn. He writes his own bios.
To embed this post, copy the code below on your site
How right joan burton is. Guaranteed to save millions if she goes ahead with this idea. Too many people choosing to scrounge off others. On the other hand, it is awful the amount of people that are genuinely out of work. They deserve every cent they get.
Well done to you and all the people who agree with you you’re idiots. When there was full employment in this country we were running at 3% unemployment, of those only a small proportion of people were long term unemployed. To tar the 14.7% who are currently in such difficulty is to display a level of ignorance all too common on this isle of ours. Instead of being castigated by morons as scroungers, people unfortunate enough to be unemployed should be supported and encouraged, that is essentially what any research into the matter has shown, the stereotype of someone chosing unemployment as a lifestyle choice is not supported by any evidence whatsoever and is simply a sign of ignorance on the part of anyone who blows this nonsense out of their mouths, as careless and thoughtlessly as shite comes out of a cow’s arse.
William, regardless of who is right or wrong, you might want to watch your language… you’re not going to win an argument this way
William- Firstly I dont like the way you refer to me and those who like this comment as idiots,everyone is entitled to an educated opinion & yours is appreciated once you have a valid point to make.With reference to the 14.7% who are in difficulty at the moment, it is the thoughts of myself & im sure many individuals that they well deserve to receive their social welfare as they cant find a job in this economic crisis, but to say that they have been offered a job and turned it down is another story their payments definitely should be cut. With reference to scroungers- Do you feel confident knowing those who work hard and pay their high taxes from their pay packet are paying others weekly s.w. payments so they may maintain a standard of living beyond that of which a traditional worker may have once all the bills are paid!? Our taxes are no longer being used to improve our health services, roads, create new employment etc, it is being returned to many individuals who have refused work from the day they were born. I am not criticising people who have unfortunately lost their jobs due to this economic crisis- plenty of them dont want to be on social welfare & would gladly take a job if they got one.
Or ‘receive no money’ even. Why should we foot the bill for anyone that’s too lazy to work for living?
have your say