Laws to limit damage to persons on the internet

With one little word I can fell him !













I think Parliament could do a lot to restore sense by
-- ensuring all participants can be identified as persons and in that way make the system accountable and self regulating.
- doing what FB did before and open it up , not close it down
--encouraging all authors ,groups and sites to do their own regulating.. 
- to advise all readers where their authors have gone when they get cancelled   
--to not get into a panic about this delicate matter
--not necessarily forcing host agencies to regulate BUT to insist groups do their own . 
- to not expect AI will resolve conflicts because it won' t .

Whose speech was effective and helpful in that story ? 


Lots of important areas to consider in the real and quite profound threats to children, people, small minorities and free speech ( just to name a few ) .

CAUTION 
I would like to remind us that while the internet is new, the problems of libel slander, grooming, overlording, dominance and free speech, to name just a few critically important and even quite domestic issues are not new; for example ; in our homes and on the field.
 
IMO We best keep the caution and conservative ( been around a while) nature of the old problems and 'solutions" in mind before we think we can easily eliminate these old hornets' nests completely. We cannot IMO completely control speech (and would not want to ) but we can discipline, as our own houses do,  and as the 2 houses do;  discipline "the spelling out "of the issues; largely inhouse
As all Parliaments on these matters should know, new quick fix solutions on these extremely difficult matters can be worse than the old.
The temptation to use bigger hammers, that, I suggest, is all around us, is not going to work. We might all be jail tomorrow , according to law ! 

AI maybe at the heart of the current maladaptive responses 
The huge avalanche of canceling on Facebook this very week suggests the move to a thoroughly AI to remain a seriously incompetent driver of irrational blocking non solutions when values and paradox are involved. 
Remember the power you might attempt to wield if you try to control what humans can say

Libel slander grooming, and free speech 
I only want to deal with two just now. 
1, What existing principles of law can bolster and build our response to the real threats?
These are things that facebook with its extensive staff have inthe past been doing well . 

Any limits to the use of AI . All hosts are under great pressure,, I am not against  using AI but just to limit its power. 

AI  is useful and its use can increase,  but it should NOT take over because the final accountability should involve human values and judgement ( limited liability, punishment to fit the crime  for starters )   



2. What particular principles should be reinforced in new and adaptive legislation applying to net users, net hosts and complaints processing.
As an key author and administrator of hundreds of blogs for 30 years, I think reinforcing one old principle will keep us from falling more into the big hole  ( that of cancelling participants ) that is happening right now:  Complete cancelling .  
AI could even help in the hard work in digesting a passage, showing why its offensive and giving complaints and authors a good hearing about what particular things can or should be redacted.  This process could be inhouse and , like in Parliament particular authors could be   asked to retract paragraphs ( at least till the matter's resolved) 
The situation is ,  as at 27th August 2025  is serious because Facebook hosts are denying access to authors complete works ,
Common law would suggest hosts could be liable if they withdraw access completely to that work. Certainly the principle is worth fighting for . 

Hence
RECOMMENDATIONS 
A suggested alternative to forced processing by the host  (all words in draft form only ) 
Prioritize the self guiding principle
A   Host agents,  can in their initial agreement with authors ( esp group admins )
  get agreement that if someone objects to words used , the host agent or admin can be expected. after an agreed period of exposure of those words,  and those words only, can be automatically removed on written complaint by another author who is a person: but only after an agreed period ( based on ............) and a public trial ( complete with public publishing of an accusation.
No behind the scenes moves against authors !  


The discussion of what is at issue should THEREFORE  , as far as possible, be held on line and in public court  .Host agents would then not be obliged to monitor and act closely depending on the audience , Does this suffice to direct effective censure action to specifically unsafe sites ( say for children) within any big hosts world  (Host agency then HELP admins rather than focus on individuals?

This online court method avoids the host agency having to do much work and be seen as taking sides . As in real court, the trial summary will follow a good hearing in the public court , It is clearly not safe sound or any fun for host agencies to employ their own judges when public court of open robust conversations is the rule on the net and in real life ( could FBook become just a nice place to post pictures like tik tok ?)  ,Noone apart from a robot wants that judging job after the first day of doing it . 
Why not keep the best traditions , just as they operate in Parliament . Maybe there is a role for the host humans to act as the speaker does in Parliament ? Points of order can operate with an incourt audience  but everyone will leave the room if the noisy nonsense and pedantry aren't dealt with QUICKLY . 
>
The idea of allowing host agents or even AI  to act as judge and jury is not always necessary Nor is it as efficient if we desire to preserve as best as possible house framing of everyone's right to speak freely and or be heard .


Hosts current temptation to deny a right of reply can often be dealt with by not getting involved at all OR  until the dispute is fully aired on the net .It happens quite efficiently on all my many sites .  Other readers,  in my experience,  will tell intruders to shut up and keep quiet if there ambition and gripe exceeds their helpful content ,
Hosts powers to adjudicate must be questioned when public court is our tradition -And it works . 

I have had a policy for 35 years of not cancelling anybody on my hundreds of sites . These sites are on  both facebook and blogs )They  are all designed to have a set agendas which mean calling for "off topic" stop talking  " is easy and effective   
When complaints arise,  I pester those who abuse the privilege of being heard ( mainly talk too much,  going off topic , repeat same old sameold  or cut and paste same old same old  -- and I ask them to take stuff down  , readers too soon call for sh removal so it happens with time and patience .  Anything to reduce anger is good but it cannot and should not be removed entirely, Adrenalin is normal and natural but only lasts a short time . Noradrenalin and other things can be expected to close us all down to find the rest we need from information overload. and the anger if we don't listen properly  
 
I have had to remove content (easy done and that act as admin slows em down) , If you confront the author that has never been a big deal ;  you can even make   friends on Facebook just by being straight with them. Annoying pests have energy to speak but their content is very limited and will be cutoff by a walkout or a dismissal from the field/room. 

This is the point :

1, Every person on the net must be a person. I don't believe anyone should publish with anon ( even institutions which should be fair game IMO) are required to identify the people involved.  
It does  not take much to verify that John Modra is a real person because he says so much and we  know where to find him. The government should encourage and support  all citizens to publish anything controversial in their own name wherever possible .
 John Modra's place on the net must be retained on the net because only that way can anyone keep him in line  That also goes for the rest of you. I am currently a non-person on Facebook despite a huge publishing volume on over 20 groups which i have authored and act as administrator on ,  .
You , not I at the moment can study some of them @Worthwatching, @Nerds in the Know ,@Wendsdownunder,  @Conservation that works.   Noone is told why i cannot be contacted on Facebook  where i used to have over 1000 friends that i cannot currently contact . 
 on other sites , I am the author of http://politicaceleste. blogspot.com  etc tec 


I would not have a life if I checked every post , as some sites still do , Checking initial posts is fine but time consuming and IMO just not worth it ".   Like the law often does . wait until someone breaks it and then hit em with it .
My point is that its a frustrating waste of time for the host to try and do it when full public exposure and court online will do it. 

Facebook in the past has done a good job and I am back a few times after certain items were checked Infact i have made new friends after a good fight on Facebook . 
The new practice of cancelling persons must stop. . The redacting of controversial paragraph's is fine , maybe with two or three witnesses if an admin has to get involved .  

2. In providing guidlines for hosts require them to notify automatically when a person =s body of work has been removed from the public arena , that will slow down the cuurent growth in cancelling 

3. AI  seems to be the reason many of us are having our  work remioved , Dont let Ai be the arbitor - it simply doesn;t know enough to make theses judgements 

 4. 
Open to your suggestions as this is a draft  .  
 

3.  What quick fix changes should we resist ?
We should resist the quick fix hammers , The ability to speak freely as we do in families and at the footy is critical to outing anger ( often the need to be heard )  and frustration . We need to make sure  people who get angry for not being listened to can protest freely as they should do in the bedroom , living room or the street. Otherwise someone is insisting that someone else just shuts up . Anger is a risky business but best dealt with by being open to it being expressed well and stopping it before it goes too far . 
Cancelling, gas lighting and self righteous excuses will grow into greater tyranny if we don't use precision in any decisions we make in this area.  
And it will never be a perfect balance. talk to Augusto Zimmerman .
Laws IMO , to be effective,  must be clear short and easily understood by everybody. 



The experienced computer bloke  said
-- language use controls have become a serious threat to many users with no explanations given in cases he has finally managed to resolve. Tik tok is apparently worse.   

--"A lot of the work is done by AI "which presumably means computers are now telling us what we  can and cannot say and we cannot hold them to account. Even Shakespeare would lose his head ? 


I think Parliament could do a lot to restore sense by
-- ensuring all participants can be identified as persons and in that way make the system accountable and self regulating.
- doing what FB did before and open it up , not close it down
--encouraging all authors ,groups and sites to do their own regulating.. 
- to advise all readers where their authors have gone when they get cancelled   
--to not get into a panic about this delicate matter
--not necessarily forcing host agencies to regulate BUT to insist groups do their own . 
- to not expect AI will resolve conflicts because it won' t .

When the law is liberating

 Because the post moderns,  like the prechristians, are into more laws and more governance, as a solution to everything,  let me make a list of some the new names for the rediscoveries of old burdens . 

1. Nannyism (Emperors who insist on parenting)   NIMBYISM  thy problem not my problem 
2. Cancelling , gaslighting , 
3. Post christain marxim where it pays the Criminal's bills because he was somehow disadvantaged
4. Any religion once there are steps up the pulpit  rather than down to kneeling for confession   
   
5. Any computer that is switched on and typed into with the subject --- the other 
   
6. Modern forms of self-righteousness ; any mind who sees how a mere law , if listened towould have stopped a disaster ..... and given ME credit  for being such a smart A .
7. Any teacher who has been persuaded to force change,, not inspire change> There are a  few in Council and the House right now 
   
8.  We could both go on .......
   Why don't you  list some NOW   you would have some examples
   
   One of the best things when simple laws are applied is that they are protective  A man over his family ; a leader over the team. 
    All Men ( includings XX's ) are prone to forgetting the responsibility and remembering only the rights of high office.
   
   The world,  instead of remembering the limits to laws and the liberty of love and laws of constraint and protection is in a rush to make more laws in the hope of limiting the landslides. Departments dedicated to moving the earth .
   
   ALBO ALLAN and BURKE are not alone in being lost in immoral and irresponsible reactive responses with clever sounding excuses - lets just  call it lying ,  Children do it when cornered . 
   Its true  that the law  ( from the Garden up) that says that you are responsible if you are charge is only true if you did not know what was going wrong,  
   
   If you, in charge , don't know what is wrong and you say you didn't know what is wrong , you still should resign that office because you took it as your oath /gift of office to know and to find out if you weren't sure. 
    The Law is not for pedants, ( and excusemakers as children quickly learn to try )  but only those who take the job of protection , finding out and responsibility very seriously; If you can't and don't check things,  you should leave. 
    The only excuse i know for "I don't remember" ( Nixon) or "
   I was not not briefed"  is that you didn't make time to know ( Romans 13:4) 

Ineffective anger management and Hypocrisy

The current epidemic of cancelling and gaslighting in the West  has its origin in the return of the overly simple feelings-based idea that "how you feel" is the only morality that matters.
According to now modern morality, anger is considered bad when clearly it cannot be.

Anger is not a sin, even though it can easily turn into it, " be angry but sin not "
True caring and correction for each other must involve something less shallow and distracting than cancelling and one up man ship.  
The current epidemic is therefore not a change in how many bad people there are, but a change in how people perceive badness.
The accuser is not only more evident now, but the self-righteousness quieter party in is often completely in the wrong because as said below, the fingers point both way because anger produces anger in both parties;

The hypocritical party thinks because they don't show anger in themselves, that it doesn't exist . 
The honest party is working on resolving what will otherwise fester. 


For example.
The now popular heresy that men or women who get angry are bad ,resists and prevents resolution. Compare the more effective venting of anger that was taught in the past.

The adoption, by the modern West of the old and eastern idea that to express anger is wrong , is causing suppression of it, Weigh it up to see if that process works and builds understanding and respect. 

According to now modern morality, anger is considered bad when clearly it cannot be - even if you don't believe in God, adrenalin performs a valuable function in challenging abuse and threats with words as well as action.    People need to speak their minds and risk getting accused of anger and even hate  ,
The old procedure outlined in the New Testament works because it anticipates the reality of short term adrenalin action , irrational words and how to forgive them ( before the sun goes down ) 

The Queensland Premier cancelling Pauline Hanson this week shows his confusion and hypocrisy. 
  Clearly he + Irwin are misleading the children on what is libel  because open confrontation on content of what you say  is OK .
The 8th commandment forbids the current epidemic of fires lit by NOT addressing the CONTENT but attacking THE PERSON. 

If the Premier doesn't admit he is wrong (on the content ), he can be judged .  

The Reactionaries know nothing about the Law

and by relying on their latest directive or law they show themselves INCOMPETENT as Household administrators. "Wait till your father gets home" is what works outside the kindergarten. The current Labor lot are as weak as water. Its been evident for decades. Instead of the old idea that law only works when you seek education and cooperation, Labor ministers draft daft pieces of pedantry to try to shut doors after the horses have bolted or just simply because they aren't used to making tough decisions. Premier Daniel Andrews was a classic perpetrator - and worse was not accountable to the law . These inexperienced bush lawyers know nothing about common sense , common sense law practice and common law.  

Minister Giles is not alone in hoping, like some Pharisees of old, that he can write a directive on how to make decisions  when its his job to make those decisions. And none of his colleagues has any idea or if they did,  they keep their mouths shut as you do in a dependent on playing on all sides nice little kindergarten state . 
The children in charge try to run everything in the pedants courts where mere word play is the game . This was always the Pharisees way and it only works if have control and you can cancel the guilty and get them executed ; silenced. 
The public are confused because of the snowing affect of all that paperwork. 
Short term gain long term pain . After all,  an appeal to a higher court ( incl the people and fair minded persons who insist on trial by testing in court )
 
Never in Australia's history have key value word lost so much reliability in their meaning. let alone the phrases in which they are put, Even astute bush lawyers in the medialike laura tingle forget that while racism is common,  and for groups  to have consititutions which are clearly racist it is not sound to ever to condemn racism as a sin  when it can just mean you prefer one cultural group over another ; or if you think women are commonly treated badly  that sexism couldn't be the term for the form of preferential treatment  they are offered by law,
Make u your minds ABC !  do you think freedom to think and speak is so low on the justice courts of this country that it is to be adjudicated by pedants who ARE OBLIGED  IN THEIR JUDGEMENTS to tick boxes .
Can no longer talk about the unfair treatment of one group?  Some of us are not children afraid to be offended by what others say about us.

Progressive theology is as shallow and ineffective as witch hunting

 The press have lined up with the dependants to make failures in the debt recovery system (ROBODEBT ) look like murder . And somehow someone , especially a former Prime Minister, who the press hate, apparently needs to be crucified .
After all justice. for the modern Progressive,  is not about paying your way , it  is about getting back at our tax and welfare agents and cutting the heads off the tall poppies in there ( using the idea that no one else is ever responsible or high enough to recieve  the same fate )
And pardon me for not condemning a Prime Minister who wanted the taxpayer to get value for money and all people treated fairly. any leader would do the same. 
Even the more reasonable Australian newspaper calls the failure one worthy of condemnation. With government incompetence it could have been any party that let its bureau be indifferent to the stress of a robotically driven process .
It is no joke to be told you owe someone money when you are unaware of that debt , so the enquiry is justified 
It does appear its the bureau that were not listening enough but most of us will wait and see . We have enough instant blame games to fill our weekend to ever watch these political blame game desperadoes who force their condemnations onto our screens. 


The high moral ground of those commentators who put the word ' unravel ' and "find "  and "shine a light " goes to the heart of their irrelevance as news service sand their new role and judge and jury services  .Yes the system should not have been so immune to feedback and reviews ; It is hard to find you genuinely owe the rest of us money you didn't earn .  A tough job  but someone has to do it , 

There is no injustice implied for the system? --was it was working well , The executive or the bureau  may be to blame . 

The incompetence could be any party apart from the Greens who would always  , it seems from their silence , favor giving the noisy needy what they want and think they deserve, 

This worship of commissions is a form of dumb diversion -so we are supposed to follow their NEW dumber that dumber logic that real courts are irrelevant and witch hunting  and commissariats , so dominant in the 17th century. is now the righteous prosecuting preoccupation of progressives.   

The coalition of dopey dreamers is about to hit the hard ground .

Its very hard to believe that in June 2023 a large majority of legislators in the Australian parliament just signed off on a sales document that wouldn't stand up in any court in the world.

Someone just signed our lives  away. 
If the sale goes through,  it will be the end of one of the world's most impressive constitutions . Ask AC Grayling who has just written two books on "Democracy in crisis " 

Is the man in this picture saying  " They are doing the right thing !"
What is the woman saying ?  

If we can't listen to our voices through two houses , how will a third one help ?

 





"Only a referendum", 
The recent referendum in Britain created what the majority of people in Britain did not want --Brexit . AC Grayling in "Democracy in Crisis " points out just how unreasonable and dangerous the process can become-   

You don't need to understand much to understand that saying YES or NO referendums are being used across the Western world to drive Trojan horses --instruments of actual madness that the people decide later they don't want .

None of us wanted Labor's last referendum which was to take power away from the States and Regions ; Like the present one, it was presented as very simple and simply , a good thing ;
1-playing fair = one vote one value 
2- giving of voice to those often unheard ( if only such a UTOPIA existed ask Sitch ) .
We saw that first  "lovely simple idea " then as a Trojan horse and we must now do the same because the current request is a power grab .
Many of our forefathers are shouting to us from their graves ,
"Beware;  the greatest evil is done in the name of the best intention " . The dreamers are so unaware of the danger and the evil they can't see it . 

"It will have no power" 
Remember, if you hear people comforted by the statement that it is "only advisory ", remind them what would happen in their own homes if they didn't listen closely to their partners advice ; divorce well and truly on the horizon 

You don't need to understand much to understand that the original 30 page Australian constitution was well understood when it went before the people . Its a great read and one of the best in the world IMO .

What is put before us in 2023 is something nobody seems to understand . Noone can tell you what the expected extra 3 -4 pages will say . We are expected ,by just saying YES that Greenlabor will be allowed to just fill in the blanks. Great ,but do you think we are stupid mate?

Only advisory

Any reasonable lawyer would tell you ( advise or instruct ??) to NEVER sign up to a construction where the unknown clauses on "composition , functions, powers and procedures " ( all there in black and white ) are yet to be written by the seller .

The same lawyer would tell you never to sign a marriage contract where you were forced to listen to someone else's advice . Advise and Instruct mean different things, but they can have the same power in English law   More here 

Andrews love affair with lawmaking

 
" when you break the great laws, you don't get liberty :you do not even get anarchy .you get the small laws." GKC 















Daniel Andrews won't be remembered, as say John Cain and  Joan Kirner will be , for concern about how best to use limited tax resources .He will be remembered for making us poor in mind and economic management.  

Andrew and his incompetents  think they have bigger things in mind than sound eco management .  The Andrews government do not have   any effectively driven passion for reinforcing productivity only to drive us to be  poorer ;  the Andrews  government has  made us poor.- really poor and with a really poor attitude to those that challenge them . Them and us . 

Naturally the law making of the Andrews government is pattern predictable because its based on control by them -and as such ...... it can't last . 
Andrews  string pullers have  made us pay big for their poor economic management , They, as this blog is focused on ,have made us poor by making small laws . Lots and lots of little laws they will now seek to prosecute in the pedantic lower courts and by finding ways around the courts by "fining ". 
These eminent trivializers have been practicing on us in their vain and incomplete attempts to manage a COVID outbreaks in 2020 .
They have done everything they can think of on a Monday morning to deal with the problem that arose from las weeks poorly thought through decision's.
The pack between the media and them could be described as a modern marriage .   ASS   Attention Seekers Syndicates .  
He's done it all ,as most tyrants do who dare to talk to the people do --by talking best intention . Really sound politicians  like Edmund Burke know the deeper reality -that the greatest evil is done in the aim of your own idea of what is a good idea .
And most reactionaries like Andrews don't have to think,  to know what they think - they just go in the opposite direction from more sound leaders. From those whom these unrepentant dills  have already condemned by contradicting  the 8th Commandment. 

In legislating recently to give children what they want ( Conversion Bill 2021) they have shown themselves ( as have the Liberals ) to be pathetic pushovers.

The hypocrites don't recognize that while they spend a lot on education , their education campaigns  based on projection, arrogance and fear are not going to work long term. 
Meanwhile our children are the poorer.