Reader Said...

Reader said...

You are, of course, right. There is a need for the law to get on top of the misuse of cyberspace fora for harassment, defamation and similar issues such as the exposing of the identities of people with name suppression, publication of suppressed evidence and so-on. Agencies that fail to act against such things are in effect condoning and even encouraging such behaviour. It is prohibited in other media, so why should this one be exempt?

There appears to be a certain smug naivete among those behaving in this way. An apparent belief that if they were doing anything wrong they would be stopped: a dependence on authorities to control rather than exerting some self-control. Petty 'gangs' of petty bullies, egging each other on. Time it was stopped.

I've chosen this as a good general example of highlighting some misuses of cyber-space.

In respect of name suppression, I was recently told that the Courts were taking a continuing interest in breaches of name suppression. In my opinion for good reason, because as with 'cyber-trials' conducted on the net, the breach of name suppression usurps due process. When due process is undermined there is a real threat to Justice and a broader threat to society generally. Without due process, everyone can become a lawyer, Judge or Jury, by 'correcting' in cyber-space decisions they are not happy with.

Due process, is a friendly beast, it allows for all aspects of the law and the application of the law to be scrutinised for the safety of all citizens. The denial of due process is the denial of freedom and individuality. When a cyber-cowboy or stalker breaches name suppression orders, or breaches conduct codes and rules of message boards by outing people who have entrusted to the board owner a confidence that their identity and details are to remain anonymous it is a cowardly and criminal act.

Above reader makes specific comment about agencies allowing such breaches to happen are 'condoning and even encouraging such behaviour' by 'failing to act.' I can't see any other interpretation that suitably explains the behaviour of such agencies. They're acting recklessly and with little regard for the law. It's of no small moment to me that I warned TM (as an agency) that their boards were being over run by hate sites, who were in fact posting links to their hate sites and propoganda at will and TM failed to act, consequently they're now being sued, not necessarily as the result of my complaint, but because of being an agency that failed to act on published material that included defamation, breaches of suppression orders and evidence of stalking.

To repeat again from above:

'There appears to be a certain smug naivete among those behaving in this way. An apparent belief that if they were doing anything wrong they would be stopped: a dependence on authorities to control rather than exerting some self-control. Petty 'gangs' of petty bullies, egging each other on. Time it was stopped.'