Mail & Guardian disappears behind paywall

dominic said:
bear in mind that the FPB has not achieved anything and there is no more online content regulation law than there was last year or ten years ago - news24 and others are just seeing the writing on the wall

i hear rumour that we may see an online name policy in the nearish future where we follow some other countries who are banning anonymity online (which i may not support but understand given the fact that we are all children when it comes to the Internet)
Click to expand...

Yes, heard the same.

Also cost related... time to trim.
 
dominic said:
bear in mind that the FPB has not achieved anything and there is no more online content regulation law than there was last year or ten years ago - news24 and others are just seeing the writing on the wall

i hear rumour that we may see an online name policy in the nearish future where we follow some other countries who are banning anonymity online (which i may not support but understand given the fact that we are all children when it comes to the Internet)
Click to expand...

Surely an internet forum is private property. A forum owner can choose to allow this or not, and if not he may have to edit or delete users who post racist commentary but hopefully not more than that. Good times ahead, boys and girls.
 
dominic said:
bear in mind that the FPB has not achieved anything and there is no more online content regulation law than there was last year or ten years ago - news24 and others are just seeing the writing on the wall

i hear rumour that we may see an online name policy in the nearish future where we follow some other countries who are banning anonymity online (which i may not support but understand given the fact that we are all children when it comes to the Internet)
Click to expand...
AFAIK the current version of the Act gives them the "right" to censor online content AND to insist on real names i.s.o. anonymity?
 
Space_Chief said:
Surely an internet forum is private property. A forum owner can choose to allow this or not, and if not he may have to edit or delete users who post racist commentary but hopefully not more than that. Good times ahead, boys and girls.
Click to expand...

so then it is mybb's responsibility to figure out who is using hate speech. Is that a good idea?

MickeyD said:
AFAIK the current version of the Act gives them the "right" to censor online content AND to insist on real names i.s.o. anonymity?
Click to expand...

No. The current Film and Publications Act gives no such right - all they have the right to do is classify some content. That content excludes any news content published by members of the press council (including online versions). The hoo-hah over the FPB in recent months has been a lot of noise with no actual substance (that will start when a draft Film and Publications Amendment Bill is published in the next few months).
 
anonymity can only be breached through specific procedures generally as part of a criminal investigation + some other bits like the protection from harassment act or court order
 
dominic said:
so then it is mybb's responsibility to figure out who is using hate speech. Is that a good idea?



No. The current Film and Publications Act gives no such right - all they have the right to do is classify some content. That content excludes any news content published by members of the press council (including online versions). The hoo-hah over the FPB in recent months has been a lot of noise with no actual substance (that will start when a draft Film and Publications Amendment Bill is published in the next few months).
Click to expand...
So effectively we can only use the Bill of Rights per our Constitution 16(1), 16(2) and the Promotion of Equality and Prevention of Unfair Discrimination Act to enforce forum rules?

And the Harassment thingey that I always point to the website for refernce! :p
 
MickeyD said:
S205 of the CPA... know that one well.
Click to expand...

will be called a data disclosure order once the new cybercrimes and cybersecurity bill is finalised

Disclosure of data direction

41. (1) Subject to sections 15(2), 16 and 17 of the Regulation of Interception of Communications and Provision of Communication-related information Act, 2002 (Act No. 70 of 2002), and subsection (4), a magistrate or judge of the High Court, may on written application by a member of a law enforcement agency, if it appears to the magistrate or judge, from information on oath or by way of affirmation that there are reasonable grounds for believing that a person or electronic communications service provider may receive, is in possession of, or is in control of data which is relevant to or which may afford evidence of, the commission or intended commission of—
(a) an offence under Chapter 2 of this Act; or
(b) any other offence in terms of the laws of the Republic which is or was committed by means of, or facilitated by the use of an article,
issue a disclosure of data direction.
(2) An application contemplated in subsection (1) must—
(a) contain the identity of the member of the law enforcement agency who applies for the disclosure of data direction;
(b) identify the customer, if known, or the service or communication in respect of whom data is to be provided;
(c) identify the person or electronic communications service provider to whom the disclosure of data direction must be addressed;
(d) contain a description of the data which must be provided;
(e) contain a description of the offence which has been or is being or will probably be committed; and
(f) comply with any supplementary directives relating to applications for expedited disclosure of data issued by the Judges President of the respective Divisions of the High Court.
(3) Upon receipt of an application in terms of subsection (1), a magistrate or judge, must satisfy himself or herself—
(a) that there are reasonable grounds for believing that—
(i) an offence in terms of Chapter 2 of this Act; or
(ii) any other offence in terms of the laws of the Republic which is or was committed by means of, or facilitated by the use of an article,
has been, is being or will probably be committed or that it is necessary to determine whether such an offence has been so committed; and
(b) that it will be in the interests of justice if a disclosure of data direction is issued.
(4) (a) The designated judge, may on request of an authority, court or tribunal of a foreign State, if it appears to the designated judge, from information on oath or by way of affirmation that there are reasonable grounds for believing that any person or electronic communications service provider in the Republic may receive, is in possession of, or is in control of data which is relevant to, or which may afford evidence of, the commission or intended commission of an offence—
(i) similar to those contemplated in Chapter 2 of this Act; or
(ii) any other offence substantially similar to an offence recognised in the Republic which is or was committed by means of, or facilitated by the use of an article,
in a foreign State, issue, subject to paragraph (b), a disclosure of data direction.
(b) The designated judge must, before a disclosure of data direction as contemplated in paragraph (a) is issued, inform the Cabinet member responsible for the administration of justice, in writing of the—
(i) fact that he or she intends to issue a disclosure of data direction; and
(ii) reasons for such decision.
(5) A request contemplated in subsection (4) must—
(a) identify the customer, if known, or the service or communication in respect of whom data is to be provided;
(b) identify the person or electronic communications service provider to whom the disclosure of data direction must be addressed;
(c) contain a description of the data which must be provided;
(d) contain a description of the offence which has been or is being or will probably be committed; and
(e) comply with any supplementary directives relating to applications for disclosure of data issued by the designated judge.
(6) Upon receipt of a request in terms of subsections (4), the designated judge must satisfy himself or herself—
(a) that there are reasonable grounds for believing that an offence—
(i) similar to those contemplated in Chapter 2 of this Act; or
(ii) substantially similar to an offence recognised in the Republic which is or was committed by means of, or facilitated by the use of an article,
in the requesting foreign State, has been committed or that it is necessary to determine whether such an offence has been so committed and that an investigation in respect thereof is being conducted in the requesting foreign State;
(b) that the request, where applicable, is in accordance with—
(i) any treaty, convention or other international agreement to which that foreign state and the Republic are parties; or
(ii) any agreement with any foreign State entered into in terms of section 65 of this Act; and
(c) that it will be in the interests of justice if a disclosure of data direction is issued.
(7) A disclosure of data direction must be in the prescribed form and must be served on the person or electronic communications service provider affected thereby, in the prescribed manner by a member of a law enforcement agency or in the case of subsection (4), a specifically designated member of a law enforcement agency.
(8) The disclosure of data direction—
(a) must direct the person or electronic communications service provider to provide data identified in the direction to the extent as is set out in the direction to an identified member of the law enforcement agency;
(b) must set out the period within which the data identified in paragraph (a) must be provided; and
(c) may specify conditions or restrictions relating to the provision of data authorised therein.
(9) A person or electronic communications service provider to whom a disclosure of data direction referred to in subsection (7) is addressed, may in writing apply to the magistrate or judge or the designated judge for an amendment or the cancellation of the direction concerned on the ground that he, she or it cannot timeously or in a reasonable fashion, comply with the direction.
(10) The magistrate or judge or the designated judge to whom an application is made in terms of subsection (9) must, as soon as possible after receipt thereof—
(a) consider the application and may, for this purpose, order oral or written evidence to be adduced regarding any fact alleged in the application;
(b) give a decision in respect of the application; and
(c) if the application is successful, inform the law enforcement agency or authority, court or tribunal of a foreign State, of the outcome of the application.
(11) A person or an electronic communications service provider who—
(a) fails to comply with a disclosure of data direction; or
(b) makes a false statement in an application referred to in subsection (9),
is guilty of an offence and is liable on conviction to a fine not exceeding R5 million or imprisonment not exceeding 5 years or to both such fine and imprisonment.
Click to expand...
 
MickeyD said:
So effectively we can only use the Bill of Rights per our Constitution 16(1), 16(2) and the Promotion of Equality and Prevention of Unfair Discrimination Act to enforce forum rules?
Click to expand...

you can have your own rules and set of terms and conditions and AUP, which obviously cannot conflict with the law - use of the site is still a contract between user and the forum governed by the rules of the forum

my point is does mybb want to be the ones to make decisions about when the law is broken? what are the liability implications if this responsibility is taken on?
 
dominic said:
you can have your own rules and set of terms and conditions and AUP, which obviously cannot conflict with the law - use of the site is still a contract between user and the forum governed by the rules of the forum

my point is does mybb want to be the ones to make decisions about when the law is broken? what are the liability implications if this responsibility is taken on?
Click to expand...
If a defamatory or libelous post is made but it is read and screen captured before a mod can action on it (delete, issue infraction, etc) does it place mybb in the firing line?

Further, is mybb compelled to report incidents where the law of the land has been transgressed? e.g. hate speech?
 
MickeyD said:
If a defamatory or libelous post is made but it is read and screen captured before a mod can action on it (delete, issue infraction, etc) does it place mybb in the firing line?

Further, is mybb compelled to report incidents where the law of the land has been transgressed? e.g. hate speech?
Click to expand...

not straightforward but no i don't think it does

how does mybb know when the law of the land has been transgressed? when something is hate speech or not quite hate speech? these are complex legal issues decided on by courts and chapter 9 institutions like the human rights commission. They are also calls coloured by experience and upbringing. Should you report everything you think might be a crime/unlawful?

or should we rather let SAPS and the people defamed etc do the work they need to do

lots of difficult questions coming up
 
MickeyD said:
If a defamatory or libelous post is made but it is read and screen captured before a mod can action on it (delete, issue infraction, etc) does it place mybb in the firing line?

Further, is mybb compelled to report incidents where the law of the land has been transgressed? e.g. hate speech?
Click to expand...

Would Mybb actually be able to recognise hate speech is the real question
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top
Sign up to the MyBroadband newsletter
X