Mdia5007 presentation


Published on

Published in: Technology
  • Be the first to comment

  • Be the first to like this

No Downloads
Total views
On SlideShare
From Embeds
Number of Embeds
Embeds 0
No embeds

No notes for slide

Mdia5007 presentation

  1. 1. By Valentina Todoroska
  2. 2.  Social media has caused a transformation in the way in which we share, receive and distribute news Individuals have a voice that is much louder and more strongly dispersed through social media sites such as Facebook and Twitter Twitter has an ability to facilitate mass discussion and debate What happens when this debate is aimed at one person and is faceless, hurtful and threatening?
  3. 3.  Prominent Australian celebrity Charlotte Dawson was subject to personal attacks on Twitter Channel Nines’s 60 Minutes: Dawson outed a cyber troll who had attacked one of her Twitter supporters Channel Seven’s Today Tonight: Dawson tweeted “New Zealand is small, nasty and vindictive. It’s a tiny little village… A tiny country on the end of the earth”
  4. 4.  How do we deal with the malicious comments tweeted by these individuals? Where do we draw the line? What about the trending hashtag #diecharlotte and re-tweeting? The nature of the internet and regulation The Convergence Review (2012): “No regulation at all is necessary in the global digital world” Self regulation of internet users, is it enough?
  5. 5.  Dawson: “Attack me all you want, I’m a public figure not a human being. You can sling an arrow at me, I don’t have feelings, I don’t have vulnerabilities so go me. I don’t care.” Dawson herself has made a career out of making brutal comments on the TV show Australia’s Next Top Model Was this an attack bound to happen?
  6. 6.  Dawson: “I had felt that because I am quite public and people know where I am and what I do that my safety could be in danger” Dr Andrew Morrison from the Australian Lawyers Alliance believes Dawson’s only option is to seek an AVO against the tweeters The tweets invite Dawson to harm herself and do not suggest violence will be directed towards her Could not be prosecuted against under Australian law
  7. 7.  Is Dawson’s case an issue of freedom of speech? Australia has no express right to freedom of speech Assumed right, whether comments are justifiable or not Twitter member Sieg Heil: “Freedom of speech… Go kill yourself” What can be done to remedy these actions when they are being made in a public domain?
  8. 8.  Questions of whether the whole issue was purposely incited as publicity for Dawson’s new book Little sympathy being given to Dawson Many believe that as a public figure Dawson should not be so “sensitive” Should Dawson just “get offline”?
  9. 9.  Twitter: “You may not publish or post direct, specific threats of violence against others” Were the threats direct? Tweets encouraged Dawson to harm herself No individual said they would come after Dawson Twitter accounts involved in the incident have been suspended
  10. 10.  Not possible to monitor every piece of content that is uploaded to the internet The ACMA has been forced to rely on a self regulatory approach Schedule 5 and 7 of the Broadcasting Services Act 1992: The ACMA has the power to investigate complaints about online content Dawson could appeal to the ACMA directly but what would it achieve? Content has already been removed by Twitter
  11. 11.  The Daily Telegraph and the “Stop the Trolls” campaign Zero tolerance approach to cyber bullying Barrage of celebrities coming forward with their own stories
  12. 12.  The Daily Telegraph under attack as a result Richard Ackland from The SMH: “A magnificent tension between the old information world and the new” Jonathan Green from The Drum wrote an article titled “The staggering hypocrisy of the super trollers” Richard Ford: Mixed reaction from the public due to Dawson’s “over sharing” of personal information The ACMA and the “Protect yourself against trolling” section of their website
  13. 13.  Australian Government Com Law. Through the Australian Government homepage. Retrieved September 15, 2012, from Channel Nine News. Through the Ninemsn homepage. Retrieved September 14, 2012, from Department of Broadband, Communications and the Digital Economy. (2012). Convergence Review. pp. vii-176 Online regulation. Through the Australian Communications and Media Authority (ACMA) homepage. Retrieved September 14, 2012, from Pearson, M. and Polden, M. (2011). The Journalist’s Guide to Media Law. Crows Nest. Australia. Allen and Unwin. R, Ackland. (Friday 14th of September, 2012). Sometimes, it takes a troll to know one. The Sydney Morning Herald, p. 13 Sixty Minutes. Through Ninemsn homepage. Retrieved September 14, 2012, from Sunrise: Charlotte Dawson speaks out. Through YouTube homepage. Retrieved September 15, 2012, from The Daily Telegraph. Through News Corporation website. Retrieved September 14, 2012, from e6freuzi-1226472968657 The Drum. Through the ABC website. Retrieved September 14, 2012, from 09-13/green-staggering-hypocrisy-of-the-supertrollers/4257706 The Herald Sun. Through Fairfax website. Retrieved September 14, 2012, from 1226463635667 The Twitter Rules. Through the Twitter homepage. Retrieved September 14, 2012, from practices/articles/18311-the-twitter-rules# Today Tonight: The hateful twitter campaign directed at Charlotte Dawson. Through YouTube homepage. Retrieved September 14, 2012, from Today Tonight. Through Yahoo! Seven News. Retrieved September 14, 2012, from
  14. 14.  Should the tweeters be punished? If so, how and where do we draw the line? Is it a case of “people who live in glass houses shouldn’t throw stones”? Did Charlotte get what she deserves? Did Dawson handle the situation in the correct way by going public or should she just “get offline”? Do you think The Daily Telegraph’s “Stop the Trolls” campaign is justifiable? What do you feel its purpose is? Would the issue of trolling have gained the same amount of momentum and coverage if the individual that was attacked wasn’t a celebrity?