# data[].attributes.body
https://www.reuters.com/world/asia-pacific/australia-introduce-new-laws-force-media-platforms-unmask-online-trolls-2021-11-28/

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
MELBOURNE, Nov 28 (Reuters) - Australia will introduce legislation to make social media giants provide details of users who post defamatory comments, Prime Minister Scott Morrison said on Sunday.

The government has been looking at the extent of the responsibility of platforms, such as Twitter and Facebook , for defamatory material published on their sites and comes after the country's highest court ruled that publishers can be held liable for public comments on online forums. read more

The ruling caused some news companies like CNN to deny Australians access to their Facebook pages. read more

"The online world should not be a wild west where bots and bigots and trolls and others are anonymously going around and can harm people," Morrison said at a televised press briefing. "That is not what can happen in the real world, and there is no case for it to be able to be happening in the digital world."

A man takes a mobile phone picture of the windowed ceiling at a shopping mall in Sydney, Australia, July 3, 2017. REUTERS/Steven Saphore

The new legislation will introduce a complaints mechanism, so that if somebody thinks they are being defamed, bullied or attacked on social media, they will be able to require the platform to take the material down.

If the content is not withdrawn, a court process could force a social media platform to provide details of the commenter.

"Digital platforms - these online companies - must have proper processes to enable the takedown of this content," Morrison said.

"They have created the space and they need to make it safe, and if they won't, we will make them (through) laws such as this."

Coming soon: Get the latest news and expert analysis about the state of the global economy with Reuters Econ World. Sign up here.

Reporting by Melanie Burton; Editing by Leslie Adler

Our Standards: The Thomson Reuters Trust Principles., opens new tab

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Australia to introduce new laws to force media platforms to unmask online trolls

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Australia will introduce legislation to make social media giants provide details of users who post defamatory comments, Prime Minister Scott Morrison said on Sunday.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
[co-author: Zachary Forrai]

Online safety regulation has, and continues to be, an ongoing priority for regulators globally. Indeed, the Online Safety Bill 2021 ("Bill") and Online Safety (Transitional Provisions and Consequential Amendments) Bill 2021 received royal assent on 23 July 2021 having only been introduced to Parliament earlier this year.

Online service providers, social media service providers and other designated internet service providers have the next six months to ensure their policies and procedures are up to date and compliant with Australian laws.

overview

The Online Safety Bill 2021 ("Bill"), passed as the Online Safety Act 2021 (Cth) (the "Act"), builds upon the existing online regulatory framework established in the Enhancing Online Safety Act 2015 (Cth) and also introduces additional compliance obligations for companies operating online.

The main purpose of the Act is to create a modernised framework for online safety. This is achieved in a number of ways, primarily through the introduction of the eSafety Commission (the "Commission"), an independent statutory body supported by the Australian Communications and Media Authority.

The Commission's key functions are to enforce the Act and administer a complaints system for:

cyber-bullying material targeted at an Australian child;

non-consensual sharing of intimate images;

cyber-abuse material targeted at an Australian adult; and

an online content scheme.

Who is impacted by the new regime?

The Act will not only influence the way in which Australian end-users engage with online platforms, but it will also impact the way online service providers provide its services on those platforms.

Specifically, the Act will impact:

designated internet service providers: entities that allow Australian end-users to access online materials, and internet service providers, being those entities who supply internet carriage services including among others, Google, Safari and Internet Explorer;

social media service providers: entities who provide services that connect two Australian end-users through online means including among others, Facebook, LinkedIn and Instagram;

electronic service providers: entities which allow end users to communicate with one another (e.g. Outlook and gaming chat services);

app distribution service providers: entities who provide access to app services including among others, Google (through the Google PlayStore) and Apple (through IOS App Store); and

hosting service providers: entities that enable hosting of stored materials provided on social media services, relevant electronic services or designated internet services including, among others, Apple and Microsoft each through their provision of cloud services.

Importantly, companies captured under the Act must proactively protect Australian end-users and have capacity to respond to notices from the Commission on short notice.

What are the key changes?

The Act introduces a number of key changes to enhance the online safety experience for Australians. We set out some of these key changes below.

Basic Online Safety Expectations ("BOSE")

The Act addresses the gaps in Australian legislation by introducing a set of basic online safety expectations ("BOSE").

Providers of social media services, relevant electronic services or designated internet services may now be required to give the Commission reports in relation to their compliance with the BOSE. This significantly expands the previous frameworks of online safety requirements for online service providers.

BOSE includes, among others:

1. sufficient standards for safe use of the service;

2. controlling the type of content made available on the service;

3. controlling access of certain materials to certain demographics;

4. ensuring implementation of necessary technologies to protect minors activity on the service; and

5. on notice, provide the Commission with timeframes for compliance with removal or blocking notices.

The Act also includes a non-exhaustive power for the Minister to determine any other BOSE as it considers necessary.

The Act establishes an online content scheme for the take-down of contravening material (for example, material falling within the refused classification, X18+ and R18+ classifications of the Classification Act 1995 (Cth)). This scheme largely replicates the online content scheme in Schedule 5 (online services) and Schedule 7 (content services) of the Broadcasting Services Act 1992 (Cth), although with strengthened power to target material from, or hosted outside Australia.

Under the Act, the Commission may issue:

1. removal notices to providers of social media services, electronic services, designated internet services, or hosting services to remove, or take all reasonable steps to remove the content specified in the notice;

2. remedial notices to social media services, electronic services, designated internet services, requiring the online service provider to take all reasonable steps to ensure contravening material is removed from the service, and access to that material be subject to a further restricted access system;

3. link deletion notices to the provider of an internet search engine service to cease providing a link to certain material; and/or

4. app removal notices requiring the provider to cease enabling end-users to download an app that facilitates the posting of certain material on a social media service, relevant electronic service or designated internet service.

Depending on the contravening material, these online service providers must comply with the take-down notice within 24 hours of receipt of that notice. This is half the time of the current 48 hour period.

The Act enables the Commissioner to request or require an internet service provider to block access to domain names, URLs or IP addresses containing material that depicts, promotes, incites or instructs in 'abhorrent violent conduct'. 'Abhorrent violent conduct' includes terrorist acts, murder, attempted murder, torture, rape and kidnapping. To issue a blocking request or a blocking notice, the Commissioner must be satisfied that availability of the material online is likely to cause significant harm to the Australian community.

Each of the above regimes come into effect in six months (or on a date to be fixed by proclamation).

Enforcement

The Act grants the Commissioner with a range of enforcement powers, including civil penalties, formal warnings, infringement notices, enforceable undertakings and injunctions.

Further, in addition to the Commissioner's removal and blocking powers set out above, the Commissioner has powers to:

obtain contact or identifying information from online service providers about individuals using anonymous accounts for actions which the Commission reasonably determines to be in contra to the principles of the Act including abusing, bulling or non-consensual distribution of intimate images of others; and

do any other thing the Commissioner deems necessary in connection with its' functions.

Significance

Although the Act expands on the existing Australian framework, the Act introduces a number of additional obligations on social media service providers, electronic service providers, designated internet service providers and hosting service providers. It is therefore important for companies operating in the online sector to familiarise themselves with their obligations under the Act and to ensure its policies and procedures are up to date to deal with any urgent take-down notice requests.

[ View source.]

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
A new era for Australian online safety regulation | JD Supra

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
co-author: Zachary Forrai] Online safety regulation has, and continues to be, an ongoing priority for regulators globally. Indeed, the Online Safety Bill 2021 ("Bill") and Online Safety (Transitional Provisions and Consequential Amendments) Bill 2021 received royal assent on 23 July 2021 having only been introduced to Parliament earlier this year.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Lessons for online platform regulation from Australia vs. Facebook

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
A compromise between Australian lawmakers and Facebook over local news content provides lessons for U.S. regulators, writes Mark MacCarthy.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Question Without Notice: What does the Online Safety Bill mean for Australians?

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
'It's an authoritarian measure' | Commentator discussed danger with on Online Safety Bill

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
How Australia Is Cracking Down on Internet Trolls

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Should social media be regulated? I Inside Story

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
How should the internet be regulated? - BBC Newsnight

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Johnson's Online Regulation Plans: Should the Government Protect Us Online? - TLDR News

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Facebook's Zuckerberg wants government regulations controlling online content

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Even before the arrival of Facebook whistleblower Frances Haugen, social media companies were feeling the heat from regulators and politicians. It is white-hot now.

We were well past the tipping point of mild concern from governments and watchdogs anyway, but Haugen's document leaks and Senate testimony have given greater legitimacy and impetus to those who say something has to be done.

Sign up to our weekly technology newsletter, TechScape.

In the UK, that means clarifying and attempting to toughen up the draft online safety bill, a landmark piece of legislation that could set the tone for social media regulation around the world. The debate over the bill moves on tomorrow with the resumption of hearings by a joint committee of MPs and peers into the proposed legislation.

The online safety bill covers tech firms that allow users to post their own content or to interact with each other - a net that sweeps up a host of recognisable names from Facebook and Instagram to Twitter, Snapchat and YouTube. Search engines such as Google will also be included as well as commercial pornography sites like OnlyFans and video games that allow users to talk to each other. The bill imposes a duty of care on these companies to protect their users from harmful content and the communications regulator, Ofcom, will be tasked with overseeing compliance.

The duty is split into three areas: preventing the proliferation of illegal content and activity such as child pornography, terrorist material and hate crimes such as racial abuse; ensuring children are not exposed to harmful or inappropriate content; and, for the big players such as Facebook, Twitter and YouTube, ensuring that adults are protected from legal but harmful content.
Is Zuckerberg ready for an £8bn fine?
A failure in maintaining that duty of care could result in a fine of up to £18m or 10% of annual global turnover, which, in the case of Facebook, would be more than £8bn. The legislation also contains provisions for a deferred power - if companies fail to follow the line - to impose criminal sanctions on executives if they do not respond to information requests from Ofcom accurately, fully and in a timely manner.

The testimony of Haugen, and the revelations in the Wall Street Journal that were driven by documents leaked by her, have undoubtedly given an extra charge to proceedings. Haugen told senators last week that Facebook puts "astronomical profits before people", knows its systems lead teenagers to anorexia-related content and knew its main platform was being used to incite ethnic violence in Ethiopia.

Damian Collins, the Conservative MP and chair of the joint committee on the bill, told TechScape Haugen's testimony confirmed the need for the sort of regulatory system that the bill proposes. "I think Frances Haugen's evidence underlines the need for that, a regulator with powers to fine and audit is what we need."

Collins adds, though, there are still issues to be clarified such as should advertising be included in the scope of harmful content and whether more should be done on anonymity.
A law with teeth
This does not feel like a piece of legislation that is going to be watered down. Haugen's testimony, and interjections from the senators interviewing her, emphasised the line that Facebook puts profit over safety (Facebook denies this, saying it has invested vast sums in safety systems and moderators). The UK committee's first evidence session made the same point, in a memorable appearance by Edleen John, the director of corporate affairs and co-partner for equality, diversity and inclusion at the Football Association. John told the committee that online abuse was a "golden goose" for social media firms because it amplified their audiences. She added: "What we are seeing from social media companies is significant resistance and a desire to focus on a business model and making money."

John's session included powerful testimony on the impact of racist abuse by Rio Ferdinand, while Sanjay Bhandari, the chair of the Kick It Out campaign group against racism in football, raised important points around regulating anonymous social media accounts. The three evidence sessions so far have featured contributions from Stonewall, the Antisemitism Policy Trust, the Center for Countering Digital Hate, Wikipedia founder Jimmy Wales, the information commissioner, Elizabeth Denham, and esteemed academics. Taken together, their testimonies will at the very least bring clarity to areas of the bill that need it (defining legal but harmful content, for instance).

Witnesses giving evidence over the next few weeks will include current and former employees of social media companies and Haugen herself, on 25 October. The committee will publish its report before the end of the year and the formal bill is likely to be introduced to parliament next year.

It is worth running through some aspects of the bill as it stands in draft form (the scope of it is such that you're going to see plenty of stories about it once it becomes law, trust me). The bill is clear that all companies within its remit need to protect people from illegal content such as hate crime, harassment and threats. There is also an emphasis on protecting children from inappropriate content and sexual exploitation and abuse.

Some companies, the ones you'd expect, will get closer scrutiny than others. Firms such as Facebook, Instagram, TikTok, YouTube and Twitter will be in "category 1", which means they will need to tackle content that is "lawful but still harmful". This tricky area applies to abuse that is not criminal, to encouragement of self-harm and to misinformation (with Covid vaccines a particular issue right now).
Freedom of speech
Generally, all the companies covered by the bill need to put in place "safeguards for freedom of expression". These safeguards will be put in place by Ofcom but might involve devolving difficult decisions to moderators. Users must be able to appeal any content removal and companies must reinstate that content if it has been removed unfairly (presumably in contravention of the freedom of expression safeguards). Users will be able to appeal to Ofcom, whose content appeals desk will be busy, you would imagine.

The category 1 businesses will have to publish reports on their impact on freedom of expression, as the government strives to ensure that they don't "over-remove" content. The government acknowledges that artificial intelligence systems will be used to moderate content, but wants companies to ensure that use of AI doesn't lead to the removal of posts that are mistakenly deemed as harmful, such as satire.

On top of that, category 1 companies will need to protect "democratically important" content such as posts promoting or opposing government policies, and not discriminate against particular political viewpoints. Facebook, Twitter and co will need to set this out in their terms and conditions, to be policed by Ofcom. A "high level" of protection must be given to content when it is democratically important. In one example cited by the government, a social media or video-sharing platform could let graphic content stay up if it raises awareness about violence against a specific group.

Indeed, Twitter has said in its submission to the joint committee it is not clear enough on "what speech is and is not allowed online". Facebook says it wants the internet to be safer too, while "maintaining the vast social and economic benefits it brings".

So there is a lot to get through. Just defining "democratically important" and "citizen journalist" is going to keep the writers of Ts & Cs, and Ofcom, busy. Expect a political push on monitoring the algorithms that tailor the content viewed by social media users and video site viewers. The WSJ and Haugen revelations have given algorithms a villainous aspect that will not escape the attention of regulators. There is a provision in the bill to demand access to information on companies' algorithms. But that is not the last we will hear of that clause over the next few months.
If you want to read the complete version of this newsletter please subscribe to receive TechScape in your inbox every Wednesday.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
TechScape: UK online safety bill could set tone for global social media regulation

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Even before the arrival of Facebook whistleblower Frances Haugen, social media companies were feeling the heat from regulators and politicians. It is white-hot now. We were well past the tipping point of mild concern from governments and watchdogs anyway, but Haugen's document leaks and Senate testimony have given greater legitimacy and impetus to those who say something has to be done.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Facebook should be punished with substantial fines, potentially running into billions of pounds, if it withholds evidence that its social media platforms harm users, according to the MP leading scrutiny of a new online safety bill.

The social network is under political pressure on both sides of the Atlantic following revelations in the Wall Street Journal that Facebook knew its Instagram photo-sharing app was harming the mental health of teenage girls. Leaked internal documents showed that among teenagers who have had suicidal thoughts, 13% of British users and 6% of American users traced the desire to kill themselves to Instagram.

Damian Collins, the Conservative chair of the joint committee on the draft online safety bill, which imposes a duty of care on social media companies to protect users from harmful content, said on Wednesday: "If they have important information like this and they kept that information from the regulator then I think they should be punished. There would be fines. The bill creates a duty of care. If there are harms being caused and a company is trying to hide that information from the regulator, then that would be quite a serious breach in duty of care."

Social media firms are required under the draft bill to submit to Ofcom, the communications watchdog, a "risk assessment" of content that causes harm to users.

The bill proposes fines of up to 10% of a company's annual turnover, which in the case of Facebook would be around £6bn. One Facebook research slide from 2019, revealed by the WSJ, stated that the app made body image issues worse for one in three girls.

Beeban Kidron, the crossbench peer who sits on the committee and was behind the recent introduction of a children's privacy code, said the revelations proved "beyond doubt the importance and timeliness of the online safety bill". She added: "It makes it unequivocal that the bill's protections must be extended to protect children wherever they are online, whether on social media, in app stores or in a virtual classroom. Facebook's own research shows how children are sent into a spiral of harmful experiences by features deliberately designed to keep them engaged. The bill has to bring in an era of enforceable minimum standards. What we have now is the tech industry marking its own homework and then hiding the devastating results."

The children's charity the NSPCC said it was "appalling" that Facebook had not acted on its own internal evidence that Instagram caused harm to its users.

Andy Burrows, the head of child online safety policy at the NSPCC, said: "Instead of working to make the site safe, they've obstructed researchers, regulators, and governments and run a PR and lobbying campaign in an attempt to prove the opposite."

In Washington, the Senate consumer protection subcommittee said it would investigate the revelations and was in contact with a Facebook whistleblower.

"It is clear that Facebook is incapable of holding itself accountable," said the US senators Richard Blumenthal and Marsha Blackburn, the chair and ranking member of the committee respectively. "When given the opportunity to come clean to us about their knowledge of Instagram's impact on young users, Facebook provided evasive answers that were misleading and covered up clear evidence of significant harm."

Karina Newton, the head of public policy at Instagram, said in a blogpost on Tuesday: "While the story focuses on a limited set of findings and casts them in a negative light, we stand by this research. It demonstrates our commitment to understanding complex and difficult issues young people may struggle with, and informs all the work we do to help those experiencing these issues."

The furore over Instagram came as the WSJ published further revelations about Facebook and how a change to its News Feed algorithm in 2018 made the platform's users angrier and more divisive. "Misinformation, toxicity, and violent content are inordinately prevalent among reshares," said Facebook researchers in internal memos. According to the WSJ, unnamed political parties in Europe warned Facebook that they had become more negative in their campaigning in order to stay on users' News Feeds. "Many parties, including those that have shifted to the negative, worry about the long-term effects on democracy," read one internal Facebook report.

Responding to the latest revelations, a Facebook spokesperson said: "Is a ranking change the source of the world's divisions? No. Research shows certain partisan divisions in our society have been growing for many decades, long before platforms like Facebook even existed."

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
MP calls for Facebook to be punished if it holds back evidence of harm to users

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Facebook should be punished with substantial fines, potentially running into billions of pounds, if it withholds evidence that its social media platforms harm users, according to the MP leading scrutiny of a new online safety bill.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
The Internet: To Regulate Or Not To Regulate?

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
A considerable amount of attention has been placed on regulating the internet. While some have argued that it is simply not possible or counterproductive, fears over security risks tend to bolster calls for regulation, particularly when it comes to extremist and terrorist content online.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
The government’s planned ‘anti-troll’ laws won’t help most victims of online trolling

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
The government’s plan to make social media companies hand over trolls’ details aims to make it easier for victims to sue their harassers for defamation. But this conflates two very different concepts.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
The government’s planned ‘anti-troll’ laws won’t help most victims of online trolling

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
The government’s plan to make social media companies hand over trolls’ details aims to make it easier for victims to sue their harassers for defamation. But this conflates two very different concepts.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
A law intended to tackle anonymous trolls on social media is unlikely to stop online bullying, but it could allow Australian government ministers to continue a trend of suing their critics

Australia's prime minister Scott Morrison has said that "anonymous trolls are on notice". His government released draft legislation on 1 December designed to force social media companies to expose the identities of anonymous users who post defamatory comments.

"These will be some of the strongest powers to tackle online trolls in the world," Morrison said when announcing the proposed law. The legislation is particularly aimed at protecting women and children who are most vulnerable to online abuse, he said.

But experts say the legislation is political theatre because it won't do anything to stop most forms of online bullying. Instead, it could undermine individuals' privacy and fuel the current trend of government MPs suing their social media critics.

If the proposed Social Media (Anti-Trolling) Bill is passed, it will allow Australians who feel they have been defamed on social media to request court orders forcing providers to disclose the real names, country locations, phone numbers and email addresses of users who have allegedly defamed them. The idea is to unmask trolls who have been hiding behind anonymous user names so that legal action can be launched against them, as long as they are also in Australia.

If the social media company can't comply, because it doesn't know the real identity of the accused user, or it refuses to comply, it will be held liable for the defamatory comments. "It is in the social media company's interests to make sure that they have a very voracious way of ensuring that they can actually tell people who this is. Otherwise, they're the ones who are going to get the case brought against them," said Morrison.

This is a major problem, because many people set up accounts with fake details, says Jennifer Beckett at the University of Melbourne in Australia. Requiring users to verify their identities with ID would mean handing over private information, she says.

The proposed law wouldn't even deter most kinds of online trolling, because only a small portion of it actually constitutes defamation, says Beckett. To be considered defamatory, a comment must be shown to harm someone's reputation. Most online bullying involves insults like calling people "fat" or "ugly", which are upsetting but not against the law in Australia.

Many social media users who go by their real names still insult others on a regular basis, so the threat of losing anonymity isn't going to change their behaviour, says Beckett. "This legislation feels disingenuous because it isn't really going to help the people that the government says it cares about," she says.

Some of the people who may benefit from the proposed law include government figures who have the wealth and resources to launch defamation cases, says Beckett.

Several high-profile defamation cases have recently been launched by members of Morrison's government against ordinary, non-anonymous citizens on social media. Defence minister Peter Dutton, for example, won a defamation case against refugee advocate Shane Bazzi on 23 November. Bazzi was ordered to pay Dutton A$35,000 (US$25,000) for tweeting that he was a "rape apologist" and linking to an article in The Guardian about Dutton saying female asylum seekers were using rape claims as ploys to get into Australia.

In March, Dutton told a radio station he wanted to sue more social media users, including those with anonymous accounts. "Some of these people who are trending on Twitter or have the anonymity of different Twitter accounts, they're out there putting out all these statements and tweets that are frankly defamatory," he said. "I'm going to start to pick out some of them to sue."

Other recent cases include government MP Andrew Laming launching legal action against Louise Milligan, a journalist at the ABC, Australia's national broadcaster, over a tweet she wrote. She later agreed to pay Laming A$79,000 in a defamation settlement. Government MP Anne Webster also sued a Facebook user for defamation, winning A$875,000 and New South Wales MP John Barilaro sued a YouTuber, who settled out of court.

Michael Douglas at the University of Western Australia says the government's proposed anti-trolling law could facilitate more defamation cases against ordinary Australians. "This proposed law is political theatre, designed to frame government ministers suing regular citizens as somehow morally justified as a 'fight against trolls'," he says. "I would not be surprised if we see more and more cases of politicians suing."

In 2018, the Morrison government introduced another law targeted at tech companies that was meant to keep Australians safe from terrorism and organised crime but has since been used to investigate journalists. The Assistance and Access Act can be used to force secure messaging services like WhatsApp to help police access metadata and encrypted communications. It was used in Australia's biggest-ever crime bust in June - which led to more than 300 offenders being charged - but has also been used to investigate ABC reporters after they published allegations of Australian war crimes in Afghanistan.

"[The government have] used these powers against serious criminals, but they also haven't hesitated to use them against journalists," says Vanessa Teague at the Australian National University. "This agenda has a serious negative impact on the capacity of Australians to communicate freely and securely," she says.

The proposed Social Media (Anti-Trolling) Bill will now be opened for public consultation so that stakeholders can provide feedback before it is formally introduced to the Australian parliament.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Australia's planned anti-trolling law may silence political critics

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
A law intended to tackle anonymous trolls on social media is unlikely to stop online bullying, but it could allow Australian government ministers to continue a trend of suing their critics Australia's prime minister Scott Morrison has said that "anonymous trolls are on notice".

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
A law intended to tackle anonymous trolls on social media is unlikely to stop online bullying, but it could allow Australian government ministers to continue a trend of suing their critics

Australia's prime minister Scott Morrison has said that "anonymous trolls are on notice". His government released draft legislation on 1 December designed to force social media companies to expose the identities of anonymous users who post defamatory comments.

"These will be some of the strongest powers to tackle online trolls in the world," Morrison said when announcing the proposed law. The legislation is particularly aimed at protecting women and children who are most vulnerable to online abuse, he said.

But experts say the legislation is political theatre because it won't do anything to stop most forms of online bullying. Instead, it could undermine individuals' privacy and fuel the current trend of government MPs suing their social media critics.

If the proposed Social Media (Anti-Trolling) Bill is passed, it will allow Australians who feel they have been defamed on social media to request court orders forcing providers to disclose the real names, country locations, phone numbers and email addresses of users who have allegedly defamed them. The idea is to unmask trolls who have been hiding behind anonymous user names so that legal action can be launched against them, as long as they are also in Australia.

If the social media company can't comply, because it doesn't know the real identity of the accused user, or it refuses to comply, it will be held liable for the defamatory comments. "It is in the social media company's interests to make sure that they have a very voracious way of ensuring that they can actually tell people who this is. Otherwise, they're the ones who are going to get the case brought against them," said Morrison.

This is a major problem, because many people set up accounts with fake details, says Jennifer Beckett at the University of Melbourne in Australia. Requiring users to verify their identities with ID would mean handing over private information, she says.

The proposed law wouldn't even deter most kinds of online trolling, because only a small portion of it actually constitutes defamation, says Beckett. To be considered defamatory, a comment must be shown to harm someone's reputation. Most online bullying involves insults like calling people "fat" or "ugly", which are upsetting but not against the law in Australia.

Many social media users who go by their real names still insult others on a regular basis, so the threat of losing anonymity isn't going to change their behaviour, says Beckett. "This legislation feels disingenuous because it isn't really going to help the people that the government says it cares about," she says.

Some of the people who may benefit from the proposed law include government figures who have the wealth and resources to launch defamation cases, says Beckett.

Several high-profile defamation cases have recently been launched by members of Morrison's government against ordinary, non-anonymous citizens on social media. Defence minister Peter Dutton, for example, won a defamation case against refugee advocate Shane Bazzi on 23 November. Bazzi was ordered to pay Dutton A$35,000 (US$25,000) for tweeting that he was a "rape apologist" and linking to an article in The Guardian about Dutton saying female asylum seekers were using rape claims as ploys to get into Australia.

In March, Dutton told a radio station he wanted to sue more social media users, including those with anonymous accounts. "Some of these people who are trending on Twitter or have the anonymity of different Twitter accounts, they're out there putting out all these statements and tweets that are frankly defamatory," he said. "I'm going to start to pick out some of them to sue."

Other recent cases include government MP Andrew Laming launching legal action against Louise Milligan, a journalist at the ABC, Australia's national broadcaster, over a tweet she wrote. She later agreed to pay Laming A$79,000 in a defamation settlement. Government MP Anne Webster also sued a Facebook user for defamation, winning A$875,000 and New South Wales MP John Barilaro sued a YouTuber, who settled out of court.

Michael Douglas at the University of Western Australia says the government's proposed anti-trolling law could facilitate more defamation cases against ordinary Australians. "This proposed law is political theatre, designed to frame government ministers suing regular citizens as somehow morally justified as a 'fight against trolls'," he says. "I would not be surprised if we see more and more cases of politicians suing."

In 2018, the Morrison government introduced another law targeted at tech companies that was meant to keep Australians safe from terrorism and organised crime but has since been used to investigate journalists. The Assistance and Access Act can be used to force secure messaging services like WhatsApp to help police access metadata and encrypted communications. It was used in Australia's biggest-ever crime bust in June - which led to more than 300 offenders being charged - but has also been used to investigate ABC reporters after they published allegations of Australian war crimes in Afghanistan.

"[The government have] used these powers against serious criminals, but they also haven't hesitated to use them against journalists," says Vanessa Teague at the Australian National University. "This agenda has a serious negative impact on the capacity of Australians to communicate freely and securely," she says.

The proposed Social Media (Anti-Trolling) Bill will now be opened for public consultation so that stakeholders can provide feedback before it is formally introduced to the Australian parliament.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Australia's planned anti-trolling law may silence political critics

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
A law intended to tackle anonymous trolls on social media is unlikely to stop online bullying, but it could allow Australian government ministers to continue a trend of suing their critics Australia's prime minister Scott Morrison has said that "anonymous trolls are on notice".

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
HARASSMENT, HARMFUL COMMUNICATIONS AND RELATED OFFENCES ACT 2020

CONTENTS

Section

Acts Referred to

HARASSMENT, HARMFUL COMMUNICATIONS AND RELATED OFFENCES ACT 2020

An Act to amend the law relating to harassment; to provide for offences relating to the recording, distribution or publication of intimate images and to provide for the anonymity of victims of those offences; to provide for an offence involving the distribution, publication or sending of threatening or grossly offensive communication; and for those and other purposes to amend the Non-Fatal Offences against the Person Act 1997 , the Bail Act 1997 and the Domestic Violence Act 2018 ; and to provide for related matters.

[28 th December, 2020]

Be it enacted by the Oireachtas as follows:

"broadcast" has the meaning assigned to it by the Broadcasting Act 2009 ;

3. (1) Subject to subsection (2), a person is guilty of an offence where-

Anonymity of victim of offence under section 2 or 3

5. (1) Where a person is charged with an offence under section 2 or 3, any person who publishes or broadcasts-

(2) Where a judge of the court in which proceedings for an offence under section 2 or 3, as the case may be, are brought considers that the interests of justice so require, he or she may, having taken into account the views of the alleged victim of the offence, direct that such information, photograph or representation referred to in subsection (1) as he or she specifies may be published or broadcast in such manner and subject to such conditions (if any) as he or she specifies in the direction.

9. The Schedule to the Bail Act 1997 is amended by the insertion of the following paragraph after paragraph 41:

"(aa) an offence under section 2 or 3 of the Harassment, Harmful Communications and Related Offences Act 2020,",

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.keywords[]
irish statute book; irish legislation; acts; statutory instruments; constitution

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Harassment, Harmful Communications and Related Offences Act 2020

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
HARASSMENT, HARMFUL COMMUNICATIONS AND RELATED OFFENCES ACT 2020 CONTENTS Section Acts Referred to HARASSMENT, HARMFUL COMMUNICATIONS AND RELATED OFFENCES ACT 2020 An Act to amend the law relating to harassment; to provide for offences relating to the recording, distribution or publication of intimate images and to provide for the anonymity

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Minister McEntee also announced that an agreement had been reached between the Department of Justice, the National Anti-Bullying Research and Resource Centre at DCU and the Department of Education, to establish an 'Research Observatory on Cyberbullying' focused on providing up-to-date research, advice and resources related to cyberbullying, cyberhate, and online harassment, and the implementation of Coco's Law.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Minister McEntee marks Safer Internet Day by commencing Coco's Law

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Minister McEntee also announced that an agreement had been reached between the Department of Justice, the National Anti-Bullying Research and Resource Centre at DCU and the Department of Education, to establish an 'Research Observatory on Cyberbullying' focused on providing up-to-date research, advice and resources related to cyberbullying, cyberhate, and online harassment, and the implementation of Coco's Law.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Despite being just 5ft tall, Nicole Fox has made a monumental impact on Ireland, protecting others from the horrors of online abuse through legislation enacted this week in her name.

Known affectionately as "Coco" by her loving family, Nicole was 21 years old when she died by suicide after suffering years of horrific physical and online abuse that started just after she turned 18.

Her mother Jackie's world shattered the day she found Coco's limp body at their Clondalkin home in January 2018, after popping out to collect her son from school.

But she channelled her excruciating grief into changing Ireland in Coco's name, fighting tirelessly for legislation that could better protect others from online bullying and abuse.

And on Tuesday, the Harassment, Harmful Communications and Related Offences Act 2020, known as Coco's Law, was commenced, with a memorandum about Coco and how she inspired the new law.

"Nicole's name is in the Irish Statute Book. Her memorandum is attached to the legislation," Jackie said.

"Long after we're gone, her name will still be there.

"I'm also working with Helen McEntee and Brendan Howlin to educate people on Coco's Law. It will be in the curriculum so everyone must learn what Coco's Law is.

"This legislation was not there to protect Nicole but hopefully it will save other people's lives and other families from having to suffer like we have.

"I'm proud that she has such a huge legacy.

"But we still have to live without her. We'll never be able to hug her or hear her laugh or see her smile again.

"So it's a hugely bittersweet time."

Nicole had been bullied relentlessly, both physically and online before her death, out of nothing but jealousy, Jackie said.

She was burned with cigarettes, hauled by the hair, hurled down metal staircases and her hip was dislocated.

But the online bullying was relentless and "got into her head".

Remembering her daughter, Jackie said: "When she was growing up she was the funniest person.

"She was lively, she was bubbly, she was very outgoing, she had a lot of friends. She was cheeky too! But she never brought trouble to the door. She was a mammy's girl. She was my best friend. We did everything together," Jackie said, her voice breaking.

The bullying started when Nicole turned 18, excited about embarking on her adult life and going to her first nightclub.

Jackie Fox: 'The guards and the courts have to make examples of these people from the start to deter other people from abusing others. The legislation is here to save people from suicide, so do that.' Picture: Patrick Browne

An older woman in her 20s befriended her to try to get close to a male friend of Nicole's, Jackie said.

But when that young man declined this woman's advances, "things turned nasty" and the woman recruited more people to harass and assault Nicole, Jackie said.

"They scarred her skin with a hair straightener.

"Nicole was only my height, 5ft, she was only tiny. She used to dance on the dance floor in the nightclub and no matter where she went they would pretend to dance beside her and give her an elbow in the face or the chest.

"One time, Nicole was coming out of the bathroom and one of the girls pushed her so hard into the corner of the table that they actually dislocated her hip."

Reeling from the physical abuse, Nicole took an overdose in 2015.

"We spent four nights in the hospital, myself and Nicole," Jackie said.

"I thought that was our worst nightmare but that was only the beginning of it." Although Nicole went to CAMHS [Child and Adolescent Mental Health Services] after the suicide attempt, Jackie said Nicole was essentially told that it was a phase and she would "get over it" so they never went back.

Although Jackie took her on trips to cheer her up, bringing her shopping, to the cinema, to concerts and to their holiday home in Wexford, Nicole was slipping further into depression.

"I could see I was losing her. She went from this bubbly, funny, lively girl to just staying in her room a lot. I would hear her crying at night going to bed.

"I remember walking into her room and seeing that she had dug her nails so deep into her legs and her belly that she bled. Her smile was gone, her confidence was gone. She felt rejected. And because she was staying in the loneliness was getting to her.

"I remember going into her room one night and Nicole told me that she didn't want to be here anymore and the only reason she couldn't kill herself was because she didn't want to leave me heartbroken.

"Hearing your only little girl say that ... just ... it kills you," said Jackie.

"And she was so strong because she held on for another two years after that. But it got so bad for her at the end that she just couldn't live another day with them.

The bullying had moved online so that even when locked away in her bedroom, Nicole couldn't escape her abusers.

"These people weren't happy just with the physical abuse, they brought it online then. They made fake pages, they told Nicole all the time through Snapchat and WhatsApp and Messenger to go and hang herself, 'everyone hates you, no-one wants you here, you're better-off dead'. "They even sent her videos of a noose, showing how to hang yourself.

"They made a fake Facebook page and on the fake page they threatened to beat her up so badly she'd be in a coma on a life-support machine.

"Nicole had never suffered from anxiety or anything like that before but she started to throw up with fear before leaving the house.

"Then she'd go out, dressed up and smiling and no one would know she had been throwing up in the bathroom an hour earlier because of these people.

Jackie believes the abuse moved online because Nicole's abusers knew they would get away with it that way.

"And there was no help. There was no legislation there to stop it. I was powerless in every way."

Jackie Fox: 'I've met so many parents who have already lost their kids due to online bullying. So many others have suffered just as much as Nicole. And it was allowed to happen because of a lack of legislation in Ireland to stop it.' Picture: Patrick Browne

Three years after Nicole's first suicide attempt, Jackie came home after collecting her son from school to find Nicole had tried again.

"We went to the chipper that day. That always haunts me because if we didn't go to the chipper would we have made it back in time?

"We were only gone an hour. She was still alive. Her heart was still beating. I was doing CPR on her, on loudspeaker with the ambulance crew. But when she went in the ambulance on the way to the hospital she took a massive heart attack, but being as strong as Nicole was, they got a heart beat back again.

"She was put on a ventilator in intensive care, but in between the sounds of the ventilator there was another noise, the nurse said that was Nicole trying to breathe herself. She was still alive."

Jackie was horrified to then hear from a doctor that her daughter would not survive.

Nicole had suffered extensive brain damage and her organs were going to shut down, the doctor said.

"We were only gone an hour. She was still breathing when we found her. I couldn't comprehend that she wasn't going to come home.

"I stayed with her for two days and nights, I stayed awake, family and friends were coming in to say goodbye, I still couldn't believe it.

"When she was lying in the bed I remember saying to her 'Nicole, will you just open your eyes?' But it didn't happen.

"That was on the 18th of January. Then on the 20th January at 5.26 a nurse said that it was time. I remember getting up on the bed with her and saying to her 'just let go. No one can ever hurt you again Cocs. No-one can ever hurt you. Just let go pet. I love you Coco-Pops.' And then she died," Jackie said through tears.

Jackie was so distraught that she decided to follow her only daughter into the grave but then something happened to change her mind and she decided to fight for better protections for people suffering online bullying and harassment instead.

"It wasn't that I missed Nicole any less but I decided to fight instead of going with her. I decided to do something about it so that no other people would suffer the way Nicole did and so that no other family would suffer the way we are to this very second."

Jackie started calling TDs and writing to people, calling for new laws to criminalise online abuse.

"At the start, no one was listening but I kept going," she said.

"I held protests outside the Dáil, I had a huge march through Dublin City and everyone who came brought a single pink balloon for Coco.

"Eventually I was put onto Brendan Howlin from Labour, he was fantastic. I had a Facebook page about Coco's Law and people really got behind it.

"A group March for Justice got behind me too and they were fantastic. There were a lot of setbacks but March for Justice kept me going."

They gave talks and marched all over Ireland for Coco's Law, and her fight against online abuse has given Jackie "some faith" that people can change the law for the better.

"But now it's up to the guards and the courts to enforce it," she said.

"The guards and the courts have to make examples of these people from the start to deter other people from abusing others. The legislation is here to save people from suicide, so do that. Make examples of people."

And plenty of people desperately need that protection now, she said.

"Online bullying has increased so much since lockdown. It's easy to get people in groups online and spread things around when you have nothing else to do.

"And I've met so many parents who have already lost their kids due to online bullying. So many others have suffered just as much as Nicole. And it was allowed to happen because of a lack of legislation in Ireland to stop it," she said.

"When the guards came to me two days after Nicole died, they said that it wasn't a criminal offence to tell people online to hang themselves or drink bleach. It wasn't a criminal offence to send videos on how to kill yourself. So there was no protection there for Nicole or anyone else."

After Nicole's death, Jackie and her family moved to their "happy place" in Wexford where Nicole had loved to play on the beach and go crab fishing as a child. The bullies lived around their old home in Clondalkin and there were too many distressing memories to stay there.

"It's never going to be our happy-ever-after home because Nicole's not going to be in it, but its taken a lot of stress off myself and my sons since we moved. I brought all her stuff with me. I couldn't give away her clothes, a lot of them still had her smell on them, so I got a big duvet cover made with her clothes, a patch from each dress or her pyjamas."

She even got a teddy made from Nicole's favourite purple onesie.

"We have a bench with a plaque for her at the sea too. I go there to read a book or think about her.

"I got her cremated because I thought she'd hate being up in a graveyard in the cold and the dark by herself. So she's beside my bed at home now.

"I never would be angry or annoyed with her. I could understand why she couldn't take it. I saw it first-hand what she was going through.

"She was my best friend. I miss her so much and I have to live without her now just because some other people wouldn't leave her alone.

"After she died I said I was going to make sure that she was never forgotten. I was angry and upset at the time but that did actually happen. Now today, everyone knows her name."

If you or someone you know has been affected by mental health issues you can contact:

Samaritans - 116 123, text 087 2609090 or email jo@samaritans.ie Pieta (Suicide &amp; Self-harm) - 1800 247 247 or 01 623 5606 Aware (Depression, Bi-Polar Disorder &amp; Anxiety) - 1800 80 48 48 Grow (Mental Health support &amp; Recovery) - 1890 474 474 Bodywhys (Eating Disorders Associations of Ireland) - 1890 200 444 Childline (for under 18s) - 1800 66 66 66

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Coco's Law: 'Long after we're gone, her name will still be there'

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Despite being just 5ft tall, Nicole Fox has made a monumental impact on Ireland, protecting others from the horrors of online abuse through legislation enacted this week in her name. Known affectionately as "Coco" by her loving family, Nicole was 21 years old when she died by suicide after suffering years of horrific physical and online abuse that started just after she turned 18.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Despite being just 5ft tall, Nicole Fox has made a monumental impact on Ireland, protecting others from the horrors of online abuse through legislation enacted this week in her name.

Known affectionately as "Coco" by her loving family, Nicole was 21 years old when she died by suicide after suffering years of horrific physical and online abuse that started just after she turned 18.

Her mother Jackie's world shattered the day she found Coco's limp body at their Clondalkin home in January 2018, after popping out to collect her son from school.

But she channelled her excruciating grief into changing Ireland in Coco's name, fighting tirelessly for legislation that could better protect others from online bullying and abuse.

And on Tuesday, the Harassment, Harmful Communications and Related Offences Act 2020, known as Coco's Law, was commenced, with a memorandum about Coco and how she inspired the new law.

"Nicole's name is in the Irish Statute Book. Her memorandum is attached to the legislation," Jackie said.

"Long after we're gone, her name will still be there.

"I'm also working with Helen McEntee and Brendan Howlin to educate people on Coco's Law. It will be in the curriculum so everyone must learn what Coco's Law is.

"This legislation was not there to protect Nicole but hopefully it will save other people's lives and other families from having to suffer like we have.

"I'm proud that she has such a huge legacy.

"But we still have to live without her. We'll never be able to hug her or hear her laugh or see her smile again.

"So it's a hugely bittersweet time."

Nicole had been bullied relentlessly, both physically and online before her death, out of nothing but jealousy, Jackie said.

She was burned with cigarettes, hauled by the hair, hurled down metal staircases and her hip was dislocated.

But the online bullying was relentless and "got into her head".

Remembering her daughter, Jackie said: "When she was growing up she was the funniest person.

"She was lively, she was bubbly, she was very outgoing, she had a lot of friends. She was cheeky too! But she never brought trouble to the door. She was a mammy's girl. She was my best friend. We did everything together," Jackie said, her voice breaking.

The bullying started when Nicole turned 18, excited about embarking on her adult life and going to her first nightclub.

Jackie Fox: 'The guards and the courts have to make examples of these people from the start to deter other people from abusing others. The legislation is here to save people from suicide, so do that.' Picture: Patrick Browne

An older woman in her 20s befriended her to try to get close to a male friend of Nicole's, Jackie said.

But when that young man declined this woman's advances, "things turned nasty" and the woman recruited more people to harass and assault Nicole, Jackie said.

"They scarred her skin with a hair straightener.

"Nicole was only my height, 5ft, she was only tiny. She used to dance on the dance floor in the nightclub and no matter where she went they would pretend to dance beside her and give her an elbow in the face or the chest.

"One time, Nicole was coming out of the bathroom and one of the girls pushed her so hard into the corner of the table that they actually dislocated her hip."

Reeling from the physical abuse, Nicole took an overdose in 2015.

"We spent four nights in the hospital, myself and Nicole," Jackie said.

"I thought that was our worst nightmare but that was only the beginning of it." Although Nicole went to CAMHS [Child and Adolescent Mental Health Services] after the suicide attempt, Jackie said Nicole was essentially told that it was a phase and she would "get over it" so they never went back.

Although Jackie took her on trips to cheer her up, bringing her shopping, to the cinema, to concerts and to their holiday home in Wexford, Nicole was slipping further into depression.

"I could see I was losing her. She went from this bubbly, funny, lively girl to just staying in her room a lot. I would hear her crying at night going to bed.

"I remember walking into her room and seeing that she had dug her nails so deep into her legs and her belly that she bled. Her smile was gone, her confidence was gone. She felt rejected. And because she was staying in the loneliness was getting to her.

"I remember going into her room one night and Nicole told me that she didn't want to be here anymore and the only reason she couldn't kill herself was because she didn't want to leave me heartbroken.

"Hearing your only little girl say that ... just ... it kills you," said Jackie.

"And she was so strong because she held on for another two years after that. But it got so bad for her at the end that she just couldn't live another day with them.

The bullying had moved online so that even when locked away in her bedroom, Nicole couldn't escape her abusers.

"These people weren't happy just with the physical abuse, they brought it online then. They made fake pages, they told Nicole all the time through Snapchat and WhatsApp and Messenger to go and hang herself, 'everyone hates you, no-one wants you here, you're better-off dead'. "They even sent her videos of a noose, showing how to hang yourself.

"They made a fake Facebook page and on the fake page they threatened to beat her up so badly she'd be in a coma on a life-support machine.

"Nicole had never suffered from anxiety or anything like that before but she started to throw up with fear before leaving the house.

"Then she'd go out, dressed up and smiling and no one would know she had been throwing up in the bathroom an hour earlier because of these people.

Jackie believes the abuse moved online because Nicole's abusers knew they would get away with it that way.

"And there was no help. There was no legislation there to stop it. I was powerless in every way."

Jackie Fox: 'I've met so many parents who have already lost their kids due to online bullying. So many others have suffered just as much as Nicole. And it was allowed to happen because of a lack of legislation in Ireland to stop it.' Picture: Patrick Browne

Three years after Nicole's first suicide attempt, Jackie came home after collecting her son from school to find Nicole had tried again.

"We went to the chipper that day. That always haunts me because if we didn't go to the chipper would we have made it back in time?

"We were only gone an hour. She was still alive. Her heart was still beating. I was doing CPR on her, on loudspeaker with the ambulance crew. But when she went in the ambulance on the way to the hospital she took a massive heart attack, but being as strong as Nicole was, they got a heart beat back again.

"She was put on a ventilator in intensive care, but in between the sounds of the ventilator there was another noise, the nurse said that was Nicole trying to breathe herself. She was still alive."

Jackie was horrified to then hear from a doctor that her daughter would not survive.

Nicole had suffered extensive brain damage and her organs were going to shut down, the doctor said.

"We were only gone an hour. She was still breathing when we found her. I couldn't comprehend that she wasn't going to come home.

"I stayed with her for two days and nights, I stayed awake, family and friends were coming in to say goodbye, I still couldn't believe it.

"When she was lying in the bed I remember saying to her 'Nicole, will you just open your eyes?' But it didn't happen.

"That was on the 18th of January. Then on the 20th January at 5.26 a nurse said that it was time. I remember getting up on the bed with her and saying to her 'just let go. No one can ever hurt you again Cocs. No-one can ever hurt you. Just let go pet. I love you Coco-Pops.' And then she died," Jackie said through tears.

Jackie was so distraught that she decided to follow her only daughter into the grave but then something happened to change her mind and she decided to fight for better protections for people suffering online bullying and harassment instead.

"It wasn't that I missed Nicole any less but I decided to fight instead of going with her. I decided to do something about it so that no other people would suffer the way Nicole did and so that no other family would suffer the way we are to this very second."

Jackie started calling TDs and writing to people, calling for new laws to criminalise online abuse.

"At the start, no one was listening but I kept going," she said.

"I held protests outside the Dáil, I had a huge march through Dublin City and everyone who came brought a single pink balloon for Coco.

"Eventually I was put onto Brendan Howlin from Labour, he was fantastic. I had a Facebook page about Coco's Law and people really got behind it.

"A group March for Justice got behind me too and they were fantastic. There were a lot of setbacks but March for Justice kept me going."

They gave talks and marched all over Ireland for Coco's Law, and her fight against online abuse has given Jackie "some faith" that people can change the law for the better.

"But now it's up to the guards and the courts to enforce it," she said.

"The guards and the courts have to make examples of these people from the start to deter other people from abusing others. The legislation is here to save people from suicide, so do that. Make examples of people."

And plenty of people desperately need that protection now, she said.

"Online bullying has increased so much since lockdown. It's easy to get people in groups online and spread things around when you have nothing else to do.

"And I've met so many parents who have already lost their kids due to online bullying. So many others have suffered just as much as Nicole. And it was allowed to happen because of a lack of legislation in Ireland to stop it," she said.

"When the guards came to me two days after Nicole died, they said that it wasn't a criminal offence to tell people online to hang themselves or drink bleach. It wasn't a criminal offence to send videos on how to kill yourself. So there was no protection there for Nicole or anyone else."

After Nicole's death, Jackie and her family moved to their "happy place" in Wexford where Nicole had loved to play on the beach and go crab fishing as a child. The bullies lived around their old home in Clondalkin and there were too many distressing memories to stay there.

"It's never going to be our happy-ever-after home because Nicole's not going to be in it, but its taken a lot of stress off myself and my sons since we moved. I brought all her stuff with me. I couldn't give away her clothes, a lot of them still had her smell on them, so I got a big duvet cover made with her clothes, a patch from each dress or her pyjamas."

She even got a teddy made from Nicole's favourite purple onesie.

"We have a bench with a plaque for her at the sea too. I go there to read a book or think about her.

"I got her cremated because I thought she'd hate being up in a graveyard in the cold and the dark by herself. So she's beside my bed at home now.

"I never would be angry or annoyed with her. I could understand why she couldn't take it. I saw it first-hand what she was going through.

"She was my best friend. I miss her so much and I have to live without her now just because some other people wouldn't leave her alone.

"After she died I said I was going to make sure that she was never forgotten. I was angry and upset at the time but that did actually happen. Now today, everyone knows her name."

If you or someone you know has been affected by mental health issues you can contact:

Samaritans - 116 123, text 087 2609090 or email jo@samaritans.ie Pieta (Suicide &amp; Self-harm) - 1800 247 247 or 01 623 5606 Aware (Depression, Bi-Polar Disorder &amp; Anxiety) - 1800 80 48 48 Grow (Mental Health support &amp; Recovery) - 1890 474 474 Bodywhys (Eating Disorders Associations of Ireland) - 1890 200 444 Childline (for under 18s) - 1800 66 66 66

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Coco's Law: 'Long after we're gone, her name will still be there'

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Despite being just 5ft tall, Nicole Fox has made a monumental impact on Ireland, protecting others from the horrors of online abuse through legislation enacted this week in her name. Known affectionately as "Coco" by her loving family, Nicole was 21 years old when she died by suicide after suffering years of horrific physical and online abuse that started just after she turned 18.

# data[].attributes.body
https://www.aljazeera.com/news/2022/1/26/twitter-sees-record-number-of-govt-demands-to-remove-content?s=09

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
1. to create a safer digital space in which the fundamental rights of all users of digital services are protected;

2. to establish a level playing field to foster innovation, growth, and competitiveness, both in the European Single Market and globally.

Next Steps

Following the adoption of the Digital Services Package in the first reading by the European Parliament in July 2022, both the Digital Services Act and Digital Markets Act have been adopted by the Council of the European Union, signed by the Presidents of both institutions and published in the Official Journal.

The DSA has been published in the Official Journal as of 27 October 2022 and came into force on 16 November 2022. The DSA will be directly applicable across the EU and will apply fifteen months or from 1 January 2024, whichever comes later, after entry into force.

As of 12 October 2022, the DMA was published in the Official Journal and entered into force on 1 November 2022.

Impact Assessments and Public Consultations

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
The Digital Services Act and Digital Markets Act aim to create a safer digital space where the fundamental rights of users are protected and to establish a level playing field for businesses.