Labor supports legislation in response to Christchurch shooting that threatens jail for executives, despite media companies’ concerns

This article is more than 5 months old

This article is more than 5 months old

The Australian parliament has passed legislation to crack down on violent videos on social media, despite furious reaction from the tech industry, media companies and legal experts.

The Labor opposition combined with the ruling Liberal-National Coalition to pass the law on Thursday, despite warning it won’t allow prosecution of social media executives as promised by the government. Tech giants expressed the opposite concern that it may criminalise anyone in their companies for a failure to remove violent material.

The bill, described the attorney general, Christian Porter, as “most likely a world first”, was drafted in the wake of the Christchurch terrorist attack, when video of the alleged perpetrator’s violent attack spread on social media faster than it could be removed.

On Thursday Porter said Facebook and Twitter “should not be playing footage of murder”, in the same way that commercial television stations would not show it.

“There are platforms such as YouTube, Twitter and Facebook who do not seem to take their responsibility to not show the most abhorrently violent material seriously,” he told reporters in Canberra.

Government can’t regulate Facebook – it’s up to all of us | Carys Afoko Read more

The Sharing of Abhorrent Violent Material bill creates new offences for content service providers and hosting services that fail to notify the Australian federal police about or fail to expeditiously remove videos depicting “abhorrent violent conduct”. That conduct is defined as videos depicting terrorist acts, murders, attempted murders, torture, rape or kidnap.

The bill creates a regime for the eSafety Commissioner to notify social media companies that they are deemed to be aware they are hosting abhorrent violent material, triggering an obligation to take it down.

Porter said a “reasonable” or “expeditious” timeframe would depend on the circumstances and be up to a jury to decide, but “every Australian would agree it was totally unreasonable that it should exist on their site for well over an hour without them taking any action whatsoever”.

“This law would prevent that and criminalise that and offer the government an ability to respond where an organisation like Facebook let something livestream and play for a long time on their platform.”

The Digital Industry Group, which represents Google, Facebook, Twitter, Amazon and Verizon Media in Australia, has warned the bill was passed without meaningful consultation and threatens penalties against tech companies for content created by users.

Labor has promised to review the legislation if it is elected in May, adding to a list of national security laws it will have to revisit in government after supporting in opposition, including the encryption bill which it has promised to amend.

The group’s managing director, Sunita Bose, said members worked to take down abhorrent conduct “as quickly as possible”, but “with the vast volumes of content uploaded to the internet every second, this is a highly complex problem”.

“This �?pass it now, change it later’ approach to legislation, such as we saw with the encryption law, creates immediate uncertainty for Australia’s technology industry,” she said.

“It threatens employees within any company that has user-generated content to be potentially jailed for the misuse of their services – even if they are unaware of it.

Mark Zuckerberg calls for stronger regulation of internet Read more

The chief executive of Atlassian, Scott Farquhar, said that no one wanted abhorrent violent material on the internet but “the legislation is flawed and will unnecessarily cost jobs and damage our tech industry”.

“The current legislation means that anyone working for a company that allows user generated content could potentially go to jail for [three] years,” he said.

“As written, that applies to news sites, social media sites, dating sites, job sites – anywhere user content could be created.”

Farquhar complained that the legislation failed to define how “expeditiously” violent material must be removed, and did not define who in a social media company could be punished.

Scott Farquhar (@scottfarkas) If the material in question is uploaded and you don’t take it down “expeditiously”, you can go to jail. What is expeditiously? Not defined! “Who” in a company? Not defined!

Corporate penalties range up to $10.5m or 10% of annual turnover, but Labor believes these provisions fail to pierce the corporate veil and punish executives for the actions of others in the company.

Penalties for individuals who “provide a hosting service” and fail to remove material can be up to three years imprisonment or a $2.1m fine, or both.

On Monday Labor warned these penalties would not apply to executives of social media companies because giants such as Facebook and Twitter – not the individuals themselves – provide the service.

Porter responded to those concerns on Thursday by noting the government had received advice that some services such as 4Chan and 8Chan had “individuals who were responsible for those platforms”, who could be charged.

“Even with respect to larger platforms such as Facebook, such as YouTube, there could well be instances where an individual is so complicit with the reckless availability of abhorrent violent material that they would be individually liable.”

The Law Council of Australia president, Arthur Moses, said criminalising social media companies and executives was a “serious step” and should not be legislated as a “knee-jerk reaction to a tragic event” because of the potential for unintended consequences.

A spokeswoman for News Corp Australia said making digital platforms liable for what they made available to the world was overdue, but the bill went beyond this.

“While we have worked with the government to try to minimise the impact, this law risks criminalising news reporting and provides significant powers to the eSafety Commissioner to take down news content,” she said.

The bill includes defences for public interest journalism. But the chief executive of the Media Entertaining and Arts Alliance, Paul Murphy, said it had “concerns that the legislation is being rushed in such a complex area without proper consideration to ensure it does not impinge on media freedom”.</s>Australia's Parliament will pass legislation on Thursday that could imprison social media executives if their platforms stream violent images such as the New Zealand mosque massacres.

Critics warn that some of the most restrictive laws about online communication in the democratic world could have unforeseen consequences, including media censorship and reduced investment in Australia.

The government introduced the bills in response to the March 15 attacks in Christchurch in which an Australian white supremacist gunman apparently used a helmet-mounted camera to broadcast live video of the slaughter of 50 worshippers in two mosques.

The government wants the House of Representatives to pass the law on Thursday, Parliament's last sitting day before elections are expected to be held in May.

"Together we must act to ensure that perpetrators and their accomplices cannot leverage online platforms for the purpose of spreading their violent and extreme propaganda — these platforms should not be weaponized for evil," Attorney-General Christian Porter told Parliament while introducing the bill.

The opposition's spokesman on the attorney-general portfolio, Mark Dreyfus, said the bill would be passed on Thursday with the opposition Labor Party's support, despite misgivings. If the Labor won government at the election, the law would be reviewed by a parliamentary committee.

The bill was passed by the Senate with the opposition party's support without debate on Wednesday night.

The bill would make it a crime for social media platforms not to remove "abhorrent violent material" quickly. The crime would be punishable by three years in prison and a fine of 10.5 million Australian dollars ($7.5 million) or 10% of the platform's annual turnover.

Platforms anywhere in the world would face fines of up to AU$840,000 if they fail to notify Australian Federal Police if they are aware their service was streaming "abhorrent violent conduct" occurring in Australia.

Arthur Moses, president of the Australian Law Council, the nation's top lawyers group, said the bill should be reviewed by a parliamentary committee before becoming law.

"Whistleblowers may no longer be able to deploy social media to shine a light on atrocities committed around the world because social media companies will be required to remove certain content for fear of being charged with a crime," Moses said in a statement. "It could also lead to censorship of the media, which would be unacceptable."

Australian Industry Group chief executive Innes Willox, a leading business advocate, said more time was required to ensure the law did not unnecessarily impinge on existing fundamental media rights and freedoms.

"Rushing this legislation through will not make Australia safe," he said.</s>CANBERRA, Australia (AP) — Australia's Parliament passed legislation on Thursday that could imprison social media executives if their platforms stream violent images such as the New Zealand mosque shootings.

Critics warn that some of the most restrictive laws about online communication in the democratic world could have unforeseen consequences, including media censorship and reduced investment in Australia.

The government introduced the bills in response to the March 15 attacks in Christchurch in which an Australian white supremacist apparently used a helmet-mounted camera to broadcast live as he shot worshippers in the two mosques, killing 50 people and wounding dozens.

The government wanted the House of Representatives to pass the law on Thursday, Parliament's last sitting day before elections are expected to be held in May.

"Together we must act to ensure that perpetrators and their accomplices cannot leverage online platforms for the purpose of spreading their violent and extreme propaganda — these platforms should not be weaponized for evil," Attorney-General Christian Porter told Parliament while introducing the bill.

The opposition's spokesman on the attorney-general portfolio, Mark Dreyfus, said the bill would have Labor Party's support, despite misgivings. If the Labor won government at the election, the law would be reviewed by a parliamentary committee.

The bill passed without debate in the Senate on Wednesday night.

The bill would make it a crime for social media platforms not to remove "abhorrent violent material" quickly. The crime would be punishable by three years in prison and a fine of 10.5 million Australian dollars ($7.5 million) or 10% of the platform's annual turnover.

Platforms anywhere in the world would face fines of up to AU$840,000 if they fail to notify Australian Federal Police if they are aware their service was streaming "abhorrent violent conduct" occurring in Australia.

Dreyfus described the bill as "flimsy and flawed." He described the timetable to pass the bill as "ridiculous." Labor first saw the legislation late Monday.

The bill could potentially undermine Australia's security cooperation with the United States by requiring U.S. internet providers to share content data with Australian Federal Police in breach of U.S. law, Dreyfus said.

"Labor believes that the social media companies must do more in preventing the dissemination of material produced by terrorists, showing of their crimes, and for that reason Labor will, despite reservations ... be supporting the passage of this bill," Dreyfus told parliament before the bill was passed.

An attempt by the minor Greens party and independent lawmakers to have the vote scrutinized by a parliamentary committee was rejected.

Arthur Moses, president of the Australian Law Council, the nation's top lawyers group, said the bill should be reviewed by a parliamentary committee before becoming law.

"Whistleblowers may no longer be able to deploy social media to shine a light on atrocities committed around the world because social media companies will be required to remove certain content for fear of being charged with a crime," Moses said in a statement. "It could also lead to censorship of the media, which would be unacceptable."

The penalties would be "bad for certainty and bad for business" which could scare off online business investment in Australia, Moses said.

Australian Industry Group chief executive Innes Willox, a leading business advocate, said more time was required to ensure the law did not unnecessarily impinge on existing fundamental media rights and freedoms.

"Rushing this legislation through will not make Australia safe," he said.

Facebook livestreamed footage of the Christchurch massacre for 17 minutes without interruption before reacting. Facebook said it removed 1.5 million videos of the shootings during the first 24 hours afterward. Brenton Tarrant is charged with murder and is scheduled to appear in court Friday.

New Zealand's Justice Minster Andrew Little said his government had also made a commitment to review the role of social media and the obligations of the companies that provide the platforms.

And he said he'd asked officials to look at the effectiveness of current hate speech laws and whether there were gaps that need to be filled.

Little said he didn't see any irony in that people were watching hearings into a bill that would place new restrictions on guns in real time on Facebook, the same platform the shooter used to broadcast the massacre.

"There's a world of difference, I think, between the exercise of a democratic function and a democratic institution like a national parliament, and some of the more toxic stuff that you see put out by individuals," he said.

Copyright 2019 The Associated Press. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten or redistributed.</s>Australia has passed a tough new law that could see big tech executives jailed if their platforms host violent video content.

Attorney General Christian Porter said Thursday that the new penalty regime would target social media firms and clamp down on the circulation of content that broadcasts violent crimes.

It comes after tech giants Facebook, Google and Twitter failed to remove videos of a shooting in a New Zealand mosque last month, where 50 people were killed.

Australia's new legislation makes it a criminal offence for social media platforms not to swiftly remove "abhorrent content."

Executives may be jailed for up to three years if their platforms fail to comply, and companies face fines of up to 10 percent of their annual global turnover.

The law will also require social media firms — regardless of their location — to notify the Australian Federal Police if they become aware that their service is streaming violent conduct that is happening in Australia. Failure to do so will see company executives fined up to 168,000 Australian dollars ($119,300), while corporations face penalties of up to 840,000 Australian dollars.

"The tragedy in Christchurch just over two weeks ago brought this issue to a head," Porter said in a press release Thursday.

"It was clear from our discussions last week with social media companies, particularly Facebook, that there was no recognition of the need for them to act urgently to protect their own users from the horror of the live streaming of the Christchurch massacre and other violent crimes, and so the government has taken action with this legislation."</s>Australia To Criminalize Failure To Remove Violent Content From Internet Platforms

Australia's parliament has passed new legislation to criminalize Internet platforms for failing to remove violent videos and audio, after an Australian gunman livestreamed himself shooting worshippers in two mosques in Christchurch, New Zealand.

Under the new legislation, social media executives — among other online content or hosting providers — could be imprisoned for up to three years and companies could face penalties of up to 10 percent of their annual revenue if they do not remove violent content in an "expeditious" manner.

The bill passed on Thursday local time with cross-party support but faced criticism, including that it could cause increased censorship and that the process was rushed.

Christian Porter, Australia's attorney general with the Liberal party, said of the bill, which he said was likely a "world first," was a direct response to footage of the terror attacks in New Zealand that spread across social media. The original video was available on Facebook for about an hour from the beginning of the live broadcast – and viewed by thousands of people – before Facebook removed it. Facebook said it blocked or removed 1.5 million copies over the next 24 hours.

"The horror of that act was brought to the world in real time and the platforms that were used to connect with the world were turned against us to amplify the shooter's message of hate and intolerance," Porter told the parliament on Thursday, according to transcripts.

Porter said the legislation is intended to make companies take responsibility for the spread of video or audio of "abhorrent violent conduct" — defined as terrorism, murder, attempted murder, torture, rape and kidnapping.

"There are platforms such as YouTube, Twitter and Facebook who do not seem to take their responsibility to not show the most abhorrently violent material seriously," Porter told reporters in Canberra on Thursday, The Guardian reports.

Critics said the bill, which passed in the legislature's last days before upcoming elections set for May, was rushed through the process. The Labor opposition party first saw the legislation late Monday local time, The Associated Press reports.

Labor supported the bill but promised to revisit the legislation if elected.

"Labor believes that the social media companies must do more in preventing the dissemination of material produced by terrorists showing off their crimes," said Mark Dreyfus, a Labor Party member, according to transcripts. "But I must be clear: This bill is clumsy and flawed in many respects."

Dreyfus argued the bill could encourage "proactive surveillance" by social media companies, undermine Australia's security cooperation with the United States and penalize small companies that do not have the resources to comply with new regulations.

The bill does allow exemptions for violent material to be broadcast or hosted if it is used for certain purposes, including law enforcement, court proceedings, research, artistic work or journalism.

But Dreyfus said the legislation draws an arbitrary distinction between news media and other hosting platforms, such as Twitter.

Arthur Moses, president of the Law Council of Australia, told the AP that the legislation could have an impact on online business investment and lead to media censorship.

"Media freedom and whistleblowing of atrocities here and overseas have been put at risk by the ill-informed livestream laws passed by the Federal Parliament," Moses said.

Scott Farquhar, CEO of Sydney-based software company Atlassian, said the bill would make any person working at a company that allows uploads of videos or images "guilty until proven innocent."

"They need to violate users' privacy to police this," he wrote on Twitter.

The legislation would apply to material from content or hosting services provided outside of Australia if that material is reasonably accessible within Australia.

The bill also requires companies to notify Australian Federal Police "within a reasonable time after becoming aware of the existence" of video or audio of violent conduct occurring within Australia.</s>In the wake of the terrorist attack in Christchurch, New Zealand last month, Australia is putting major pressure on Big Tech to prevent the spread of hateful and violent content on their platforms, with a new law that threatens major fines and imprisonment.

The law positions Australia at the extreme end of a growing push to police the digital gatekeepers.

On Thursday, Australia’s parliament passed legislation that carries penalties of up to 10 percent of annual global net sales over the 12 months preceding an offense for the companies, and imprisonment of up to three years for company executives. It is unclear from the legislation which executives would be subjected to the law.

The new Sharing of Abhorrent Violent Material bill requires hosting services and content service providers to notify law enforcement and “expeditiously” remove content that depicts “abhorrent violent conduct,” which the bill defines as terrorist acts, murder, attempted murder, torture, rape, and kidnapping.

The law does not limit its scope to the executives of major corporations like Google or Facebook. Instead, those who run any site or service that fails to remove “abhorrent violent material” from their servers are also subject to potential fines or imprisonment under the law.

The bill was drafted in response to the horrific shooting at two mosques in Christchurch, during which the shooter livestreamed his attack and white supremacist messages on Facebook. After the original livestream was removed, the video rapidly proliferated across the platform as Facebook moderators scrambled to remove hundreds of thousands of re-uploads. The company says it automatically blocked 1.2 million versions while another 300,000 made it past their filters. Videos were also shared on Twitter, Reddit, and YouTube, all of which likewise struggled to contain it.

Australia’s attorney general, Christian Porter, told reporters on Thursday that Twitter and Facebook “should not be playing footage of murder,” according to The Guardian. “There are platforms such as YouTube, Twitter, and Facebook who do not seem to take their responsibility to not show the most abhorrently violent material seriously,” Porter told reporters.

The Guardian reports that Porter explained a jury would have to decide what constitutes an “expeditious” timeframe for removal of offending content, meaning it is not specifically defined by the law. Porter added, “every Australian would agree it was totally unreasonable that it [the Christchurch video] should exist on their [Facebook’s] site for well over an hour without them taking any action whatsoever.”

Digital Industry Group Inc (DIGI), an Australian group that represents Twitter, Google, Facebook, and Amazon, among other tech companies, denounced the new law.

“This law, which was conceived and passed in five days without any meaningful consultation, does nothing to address hate speech, which was the fundamental motivation for the tragic Christchurch terrorist attacks,” DIGI managing director Sunita Bose said, in a statement.

Bose said that DIGI members try to remove abhorrent content as fast as possible. “But with the vast volumes of content uploaded to the internet every second, this is a highly complex problem that requires discussion with the technology industry, legal experts, the media and civil society to get the solution right,” Bose said.

“We have zero tolerance for terrorist content on our platforms,” a Google spokesperson told Gizmodo. “We are committed to leading the way in developing new technologies and standards for identifying and removing terrorist content.”

Facebook and Twitter directed Gizmodo to the statement from DIGI.

In an interview on Good Morning America that aired shortly after the bill was passed, Facebook CEO Mark Zuckerberg rejected calls made after the Christchurch attack to add a delay to livestreams, because it would “fundamentally break what livestreaming is for people.”</s>Australia will fine social media companies up to 10 percent of their annual global turnover and imprison executives for up to three years if violent content is not removed “expeditiously” under a new law passed by the country’s parliament on Thursday.

The new law is in response to a lone gunman attack on two mosques in Christchurch on March 15, killing 50 people as they attended Friday prayers.

The gunman broadcasted his attack live on Facebook and it was widely shared for over an hour before being removed, a timeframe Australian Prime Minister Scott Morrison described as unacceptable.

READ MORE: Christchurch shooting video triggers lawsuit against Facebook and YouTube by French Muslim group

Australian Brenton Tarrant, 28, a suspected white supremacist, has been charged with one murder following the attack and was remanded without a plea. He is due back in court on April 5, when police said he was likely to face more charges.

It is now an offense in Australia for companies, such as Facebook Inc and Alphabet’s Google, which owns YouTube, not to remove any videos or photographs that show murder, torture or rape without delay.

Companies must also inform Australian police within a “reasonable” timeframe.

WATCH: New Zealand PM says they’ve attempted to remove video of mosque shootings

“It is important that we make a very clear statement to social media companies that we expect their behavior to change,” Mitch Fifield, Australia’s minister for communications and the arts, told reporters in Canberra.

Juries will decide whether companies have complied with the timetable.

A spokeswoman for Google declined to comment on the legislation specifically, but said the company has already taken action to limit violent content on its platforms.

READ MORE: New Zealand’s inquiry into mosque shootings will look at social media, spy agencies and guns

A spokeswoman for Facebook was not immediately able for comment.

Facebook said last week it was exploring restrictions on who can access their live video-streaming service, depending on factors such as previous violations of the site’s community standards.

Australia’s opposition Labor party backed the legislation, but said it will consult with the technology industry over possible amendments if it wins power at an election due in May.

Australia’s parliament will rise until after the election. The newly elected lawmakers will not sit until at least July.

Critics of the legislation said the government moved too quickly, without proper consultation and consideration.

“Laws formulated as a knee-jerk reaction to a tragic event do not necessarily equate to good legislation and can have myriad unintended consequences,” said Arthur Moses, head of the Australian Law Council.</s>Australia’s Parliament passed legislation on Thursday that could imprison social media executives if their platforms stream real violence such as the New Zealand mosque shootings.

Critics warn that some of the most restrictive laws about online communication in the democratic world could have unforeseen consequences, including media censorship and reduced investment in Australia.

The conservative government introduced the bills in response to the March 15 attacks in Christchurch in which an Australian white supremacist apparently used a helmet-mounted camera to broadcast live on Facebook as he shot worshippers in the two mosques.

Australia’s government rushed the legislation through the last two days that Parliament sits before elections are expected in May, dispensing with the usual procedure of a committee scrutinizing its content first.

“Together we must act to ensure that perpetrators and their accomplices cannot leverage online platforms for the purpose of spreading their violent and extreme propaganda — these platforms should not be weaponized for evil,” Attorney General Christian Porter told Parliament while introducing the bill.

The opposition’s spokesman on the attorney general portfolio, Mark Dreyfus, committed his center-left Labor Party to support the bill despite misgivings. If the Labor wins the election, the law would be reviewed by a parliamentary committee.

The law has made it a crime for social media platforms not to remove “abhorrent violent material” quickly. The crime would be punishable by three years in prison and a fine of 10.5 million Australian dollars ($7.5 million), or 10% of the platform’s annual turnover, whichever is larger.

Abhorrent violent material is defined as acts of terrorism, murder, attempted murder, torture, rape and kidnapping. The material must be recorded by the perpetrator or an accomplice for the law to apply. Platforms anywhere in the world would face fines of up to AU$840,000 ($597,500) if they fail to notify Australian Federal Police if they are aware their service was streaming “abhorrent violent conduct” occurring in Australia.

Dreyfus described the bill as “clumsy and flawed,” and the timetable to pass it as “ridiculous.” Labor first saw the legislation late Monday.

The bill could potentially undermine Australia’s security cooperation with the United States by requiring U.S. internet providers to share content data with Australian Federal Police in breach of U.S. law, Dreyfus said.

The Digital Industry Group Inc. — an association representing the digital industry in Australia including Facebook, Google and Twitter — said taking down abhorrent content was a “highly complex problem” that required consultation with a range of experts which the government had not done.

“This law, which was conceived and passed in five days without any meaningful consultation, does nothing to address hate speech, which was the fundamental motivation for the tragic Christchurch terrorist attacks,” the group’s managing director Sunita Bose said in a statement.

“This creates a strict internet intermediary liability regime that is out of step with the notice-and-takedown regimes in Europe and the United States, and is therefore bad for internet users as it encourages companies to proactively surveil the vast volumes of user-generated content being uploaded at any given minute,” Bose added.

Arthur Moses, president of the Australian Law Council, the nation’s top lawyers group, said the law could lead to media censorship and prevent whistleblowers from using social media to shine a light on atrocities because of social media companies’ fear of prosecution.

“Media freedom and whistleblowing of atrocities here and overseas have been put at risk by the ill-informed livestream laws passed by the Federal Parliament,” Moses said.

The penalties would be “bad for certainty and bad for business,” which could scare off online business investment in Australia, Moses said.

Australian Industry Group chief executive Innes Willox, a leading business advocate, said more time was required to ensure the law did not unnecessarily impinge on existing fundamental media rights and freedoms.

Scott Farquhar, co-founder of the Sydney-based software company Atlassian, predicted job losses in the technology industry.

“As of today, any person working at any company (globally) that allows users to upload videos or images could go to jail,” Farquhar tweeted. “Guilty until proven innocent.”

Fergus Hanson, head of the International Cyber Policy Center at the Australian Strategic Policy Institute, saw problems in the legislation’s definitions, including how long a company had to “expeditiously” remove offense material.

Facebook livestreamed the Christchurch massacre for 17 minutes without interruption before reacting. Facebook said it removed 1.5 million videos of the shootings during the first 24 hours afterward.

It was filmed by Brenton Harrison Tarrant, 28, whose video and writings included anti-Muslim views and detailed how he planned the attack. Tarrant is scheduled to appear in court Friday and will face 50 murder and 38 attempted murder charges, according to New Zealand police.

Executives of Facebook, Google, Twitter, internet service providers and Australian phone companies met Prime Minister Scott Morrison and three ministers last week to discuss social media regulation. Communications Minister Mitch Fifield said Facebook “did not present any immediate solutions to the issues arising out of the horror that occurred in Christchurch.”

Facebook did not immediately respond to a request for comment on Thursday. CEO Mark Zuckerberg used an op-ed in The Washington Post last week to invite a more active role by governments and regulators to deal the harmful online content.

“The rules governing the internet allowed a generation of entrepreneurs to build services that changed the world and created a lot of value in people’s lives,” Zuckerberg wrote. “It’s time to update these rules to define clear responsibilities for people, companies and governments going forward.”

Morrison wants to take the Australian law to a Group of 20 countries forum as a model for holding social media companies to account.

New Zealand’s Justice Minister Andrew Little said his government had also made a commitment to review the role of social media and the obligations of the companies that provide the platforms. He said he had asked officials to look at the effectiveness of current hate speech laws and whether there were gaps that need to be filled.

Little said he didn’t see any irony in that people were watching hearings into a bill that would place new restrictions on guns in real time on Facebook, the same platform the shooter used to broadcast the massacre.

“There’s a world of difference, I think, between the exercise of a democratic function and a democratic institution like a national parliament, and some of the more toxic stuff that you see put out by individuals,” he said.</s>A new Australian law could mean that executives of major social media firms could face huge fines — or even jail time – for failing to remove violent videos and images from their networks.

CNET reports that executives and owners of websites such as Facebook, YouTube, Reddit and even image board sites such as 4Chan could face harsh penalties under a new Australian law that aims to prevent the display of violent images and videos on these platforms. The new “world-first” laws were developed in the wake of the Christchurch mosque shooting which saw 49 people killed.

The legislation was passed in Australian parliament on Thursday and targets social media sites with large fines and jail terms for company executives if they fail or refuse to remove “abhorrent violent material” from their respective platforms. These laws are unique in the fact that they target the social networks and their owners rather than the individuals that upload the violent material.

The new laws require that Internet service providers, social networks and “content service providers” ensure the “expeditious removal” of violent material from their platforms. The providers are also required to notify the Australian Federal Police “within a reasonable time” of becoming aware of its presence on their platforms. The law defines abhorrent violent material as audio or visual material that includes footage of terrorist acts, murder, torture, rape, and kidnapping.

The penalties for failing to do so are up to three years in jail for individuals and fines of as much as 10 percent of a company’s annual revenue. The laws are supposedly designed to stop the spread of violent material such as the livestream footage of the shooting at the Christchurch mosque. Australian Attorney-General Christian Porter stated that the laws were “most likely a world first” in terms of legislating and regulating how social media networks act. “There was a near unanimous view among Australians that social media platforms had to take more responsibility for their content… and the law should prevent them from live streaming or playing acts of the most horrendous violence,” he said.

The attorney general singled out 4Chan specifically stating: “If you look at an organization like 4Chan, which is a hosting service, that was created, owned and operated by an individual,” he said. “With respect to the larger platforms like Facebook, YouTube, there could be instances where an individual is so complicit with the reckless availability of violent material that they would be individually liable.”

The Digital Industry Group Inc, an organization which includes companies such as Amazon and Verizon Media, commented on the legislation stating that it was rushed and “does nothing to address hate speech.” In a statement the group said: “No one wants abhorrent content on their websites, and DIGI members work to take this down as quickly as possible. But with the vast volumes of content uploaded to the internet every second, this is a highly complex problem that requires discussion with the technology industry, legal experts, the media and civil society to get the solution right — that didn’t happen this week.”
The Australian Parliament passes a law which makes it illegal for Internet platforms and service providers to host videos of "abhorrent violent conduct" without "expeditiously" removing them.