The Advertiser revealed today that a new law came into force on January 6, requiring internet bloggers, and anyone making a comment on next month’s state election, to publish their real name and postcode when commenting on the poll.

No such rules apply to commenting on federal elections.

The Right to Know Coalition, made up of major media outlets, has described the new laws as “draconian”.

Attorney General Michael Atkinson was quoted in the Adelaide Now report saying: “There is no impinging on freedom of speech, people are free to say what they wish as themselves, not as somebody else.”

As a newspaper and website editor I consider the new law to be a disturbing development.

It will inevitably lead to a proliferation of anonymously published offshore websites that have no moderation policies at all.

It will not prevent comment on South Australian politics, but it will restrict South Australian media in publishing comments.

It appears that SA newspaper websites have been deliberately singled out to verify the identity of all commenters, which will limit the number of comments and the flow of debate, also making it difficult for some people to comment at all.

Ironically, the ABC may not be covered by the same law, because Mr Atkinson concedes it does not meet the definition of an “electronic journal” and falls under federal legislation.

This creates the ridiculous situation where a handful of newspaper websites, including The Border Watch, will face more stringent regulations than other media.

Talkback radio will presumably continue to be exempt from identification requirements. Mr Atkinson, please explain the difference.

Sadly, young people will find it almost impossible to get a comment published on a newspaper website.

Most likely, we’ll have to use the electoral roll and phone book for verification.

Disappointingly, the opposition Liberal Party supported the legislation when it passed through parliament last year.

• Graphic from The Inquisitr
• Update: The Attorney General has backed down and said he will repeal the law retrospectively if Labor wins government.

I oppose Australian Government plans to compulsorily filter the web.

GetUp! has gathered more than 120,000 petition signatures so far in opposition to mandatory internet censorship.

There are plenty of alternatives, like distributing software to parents to use at home, or making the filter opt-in rather than mandatory.

And of course, prosecute people who download and use inappropriate material such as child pornography and bomb manufacture.

But don’t enshrine the nanny state and take away our freedom to choose.

Categorised under “Organizations – clubs and societies”, the group was called “People who think Joe is annoying”. There was a photo of Joe wearing his cricket club cap, with a red line drawn through his head.

The description read: “This group is for people who all agree Joe is an annoying tool.”

Some of the early members published mildly insulting posts, nothing in isolation that would trigger a defamation action in the real world, but collectively … a recipe for depression or worse if they continued to aggregate.

I don’t know the legal definition, but the site was definitely vilifying its subject according to my understanding of the word: “To make vile; debase; degrade.”

Fortunately, some commonsense started to show itself.

One boy wrote: “wow u guys really don’t understand do u. this guy has done nothing wrong. in fact i would say he ha helped people out. u realise that this is the weakest form of bullying and it is also a criminal offence. u cant ignore me by deleting me messages cos im just gonna keep posting them. delete this now before u get urselves into to much shit. trust me i would.”

A local man who discovered the group entered the discussion: “ok everyone who thinks this is a funny joke – think about this….. think about what kind of impact this kind of thing can have on someone, I attended a funeral of a young gentleman only 2 days ago who happened to be the victim of bullying … so just imagine if this was about you, your brother/sister, best friend, team mate or other family member … seriously you should all be aware what this can do to people, you should all be ashamed of yourselves for being involved in this group, remove yourselves and this group. its the right thing to do.”

The heat was on the perpetrators. A couple more posts targeted them:

“freeking disgraceful by all involved, all of you need to have a look at yourself, i echo what A and B (names removed) have said and have felt sick since heard about this group was hoping it was a urban myth. Your generation has experienced enough pain and grief without inflicting it someone else who too be honest is honest and would do anything for any body and i emphasise anybody!! really disappointing stuff and makes me wonder what makes you tick and your sense of humour well that’s debatable. Oops, the group creators did a runner. They removed themselves from the group, but left it live and open to comments.”

One lady observed: “I hope that you wankers realise that most the people that have joined this group are the ones telling you what tools you are. Leave the poor kid alone. Oh would you look at that all the admins have left the group, guess they couldn’t hack the crap from all the normal people.”

Someone who knew the creators chipped in: “The group getting deleted tonight. Weren’t you a kid before? They make mistakes. Think stuff is funny and all that shit, they just need an adult to tell them its wrong and not called for them to realise the effects it has on others. I know for a fact the person is scared shitless and doesn’t know what to do.”

Well, it would appear you can’t delete a group if the administrator removes himself as a member. Catch 22. The administrator had to find a deep hole to hide himself in, or come clean, rejoin the group and close it.

Genuinely contrite, or perhaps under some pressure from others, the creator made this post:

Apart from the creator acting stupidly, this whole incident raises a number of issues.

1) Should children be allowed free access to social media websites? No.
2) Should Facebook or any other social media be allowed to publish whatever it likes? No.
3) How do you regulate social media? That’s hard.

In my view, authorities need to urgently examine the regulation of popular interactive websites, such as Facebook.

It is not acceptable that mainstream media are subject to laws and responsibilities, while so-called social media have free reign.

Vilification is a terrible act at any time, but coming in the wake of a local death attributed to bullying, it’s reckless and reprehensible.

Most newspapers are now active online and seek to maintain standards of commentary that conform with societal standards.

The speed of publication and its inherently interactive nature makes for a more dynamic environment, but standards are maintained. Facebook however, in this case at least, abrogated its responsibility as a publisher.

The mechanisms for others to report a distasteful page or comment failed.

Trawl the web and it’s not too difficult to find flame posts, personal attacks and vilification galore.

The task of taming this giant beast is nearly impossible. In most cases, the authorities and those vilified are helpless to act.

I genuinely believe this issue ought to be on the agenda for world leaders to discuss at the United Nations and the G8 summit.

Not the attack on a South Australian teenager, but how to regulate social media without surrendering freedom to publish responsibly.

Wikipedia is a model that should be looked at, ie community editors.

Perhaps every website publisher should have to sign a code of conduct with the webhost and risk automatic closure if the code is breached.

Yes, that will require legislation, bureaucracy, appeal mechanisms and controls. Impose a tax at the hosting level.

They are some options off the top of my head that don’t involve filtering.

I’m not making this up and it’s not April Fool’s Day.

The Courier Mail reports that Communications Minister Stephen Conroy has hatched a $44.2 million plan to control what we read online.

Internet censorship will involve two tiers – one level of mandatory filtering for all Australians and an optional level that will provide a “clean feed”, censoring adult material.

“We are talking about mandatory blocking, where possible, of illegal material,” the Minister told a Senate Estimates Committee.

I find this very disturbing. I don’t know the best solution to protect children from pornography and predators, but I do know government filtering isn’t the way to go.

The website No Clean Feed explains what is proposed and how to oppose it.

They are all hosted on my personal account with Site5. I have closed the reseller account and switched the sole remaining site from there to wordpress.com.

The funny thing about Desert Storks is that I asked the owner, a Rotary colleague, to see me at work today for a quick rundown on managing the admin section.

Unfortunately, I discovered at the last minute our corporate firewall blocked any access to the site, deeming it as “adult content”.

Those references to breastfeeding and pregnancy are obviously considered porn by the computer.