# data[].attributes.headline
1. "Man Wrongly Identified As The Bondi Junction Killer Wants Cops To Prosecute Social Media Users"

# data[].attributes.subject
1. "Man Wrongly Identified As The Bondi Junction Killer Wants Cops To Prosecute Social Media Users"

# data[].attributes.body
This case, where Cohen was wrongfully reported as the Bondi Junction killer due to social media users who spread misinformation, exemplifies how viral online justice may foster digital harm. Online justice occurs within a techno-social context, in which citizens take justice into their own hands outside of the formal justice system processes through social media. A common example of this form of informal justice, as seen in this case, occurs by naming and shaming suspected offenders online. Following the large-scale spread of misinformation on Cohen, he also became a victim of cyberbullying, a common digital harm and consequence of online justice as he received many hate messages, threats, and anti-Semitic comments.

This illustrates a critique of online justice—that innocent civilians can be wrongfully accused and punished online. This was similarly seen in the “armchair investigation” of the Boston bombings by Reddit users who falsely accused an innocent individual of being the offender, resulting in harassment and abuse directed towards the individual accused and their family.

However, while trial by social media poses risks such as false accusations, it can also be a tool to protect victims of crime. For instance, research shows that women are increasingly drawing on their digital social networks to  name  and  shame  the  perpetrators  of  gender-based violence to successfully hold perpetrators accountable.

Certain online behaviours like sending offensive messages or posting malicious misinformation can be criminally charged. However, for an online post to be considered adult cyber abuse, it must be covered by the definition in the Online Safety Act, which reserves the term for extreme abusive material posted with the goal of inflicting significant harm on a person. The article suggests that due to the rigorous criteria needed to define adult cyber abuse, and the fact that Australia’s eSafety Commissioner cannot make criminal prosecutions, it is unlikely that X users will be held accountable for defamation and spreading misinformation.

Therefore, there is a need for social media companies, such as X, to play a more proactive role in deterring uncorroborated instances of viral justice, which occurs when a viral online post is viewed and shared by a large number of users. A more rigorous and formal fact-checking system is needed to prevent false accusations that can be detrimental for an individual, while still allowing social media to foster a space for engagement with positive motivations for online justice such as awareness, activism, evidence gathering, and demanding formal justice.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Benjamin Cohen, the 20-year-old student Channel Seven wrongly reported was the Bondi Junction killer, has asked NSW Police Commissioner Karen Webb to prosecute social media users who posted the misinformation.

Cohen was misidentified as the man who killed six people in Bondi Junction Westfield on social media - claims Channel 7 then reported as fact. The result was a misinformation storm, with Cohen receiving hate messages, threats and anti-Semitic comments about his Jewish heritage in the frenzy.

Cohen sued Channel 7 for defamation over its report, and settled on an undisclosed amount.

However, his lawyer Patrick George has said in a statement that Cohen is now requesting police prosecute social media users who "wilfully identified" Cohen as the attacker on X, formerly known as Twitter.

"These persons maliciously posted the false accusation for their own improper purposes, in some cases simply to draw attention to themselves," George claimed.

"It spread like wildfire not just in Australia but throughout the world over the Saturday night."

George said and Cohen handed evidence to police, identifying uses of social media that they called "malicious and irresponsible use of social media."

"We have requested the Commissioner of Police to consider prosecution for offences ... for menacing, harassing and offensive conduct... criminal defamation [and]... for inciting violence on racial grounds," George said, per ABC News.

Misinformation was rife on X's platform following the mass stabbing, with accusations the killer - who was later identified as 40-year-old Queensland man Joel Cauchi - was Muslim.

Racist and Islamophobic comments took over the site and spread like wildfire, until Cohen was wrongly identified - then the messages took on an anti-Semitic tone, with ABC News reporting Cohen's name circulated in pro-Kremlin social media accounts.

In NSW, certain online behaviours like sending offensive messages or posting malicious misinformation can be the subject of criminal charges either under the Using a Carriage Service to Menace/Harass/Offend or as criminal defamation, according to law firm Armstrong Legal.

Australia's eSafety Commissioner investigates cyber bullying of children, adult cyber abuse, image-based abuse (sharing, or threatening to share, intimate images without consent) and illegal and restricted content.

For a post to be considered "adult cyber abuse", it must be covered by the definition in the Online Safety Act, which reserves the term for severely abusive material posted with the intention to cause a person serious harm.

The threshold is actually very high, mostly to protect free speech - but even if the posts about Cohen did meet that criteria, the eSafety Commissioner typically helps a complainant take down offensive posts. Criminal prosecutions are well out of its jurisdiction.

PEDESTRIAN.TV has contacted NSW Police for comment, who said prosecuting social media users was a matter for the Attorney General (who has also been contact for comment).

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Man Wrongly Identified As The Bondi Junction Killer Wants Cops To Prosecute Social Media Users

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
"These persons maliciously posted the false accusation for their own improper purposes, in some cases simply to draw attention to themselves."

# data[].attributes.headline
2. "Convicted child-rapist faces WA court after alleged discovery of child abuse material on his phone"

# data[].attributes.subject
2. "Convicted child-rapist faces WA court after alleged discovery of child abuse material on his phone"

# data[].attributes.body
Technology has opened up a new landscape for new crime. As seen in this case, a 53-year-old man has used technology to collect, produce, and share child sexual exploitation material, as well as use technology to sexually engage with minors. This reflects a significant issue with the growing technological landscape, that there is an increasing amount of antisocial media, which refers to the curation of online content of certain criminal offences for the entertainment of others online. This unfortunately often includes child sexual exploitation material made for the targeted audience of other pedophiles.

This case also demonstrates how new technology makes cybercrime easier to commit. Apps like Signal and Telegram, which were used by the perpetrator, make such crimes more widespread due to the fact that they can be easily accessed, allow offenders to target numerous victims quickly, require little technical skill to operate, and allow cybercriminals to maintain anonymity.

What is notable about this case is that the defence lawyer applied for a suppression order to prevent publicising the perpetrator's identity in order to ensure a non-prejudiced trial without interference from social media discourse. This illustrates how informal justice practices can obstruct a just application of criminal law proceedings.

The defence lawyer appears to be avoiding both digilantism and a trial by media scenario. Digilantism occurs when individuals or groups outside of the legal system address alleged crimes by exposing wrongdoings, seeking justice, or holding perpetrators accountable instead of relying on official legal avenues, often through social media and online platforms. Similarly, trial by media refers to when the media fosters a presumption of an accused perpetrator’s guilt before or after the case has been tried in court. Given the nature of this crime, it is likely that publicising the perpetrator’s name would provoke digilantes and social media discourses.

While publicising a sex-offender’s identity is in the public interest after conviction, the risk of informal online justice can have some negative implications for victims during and before the trial. For example, informal justice can hinder the formal legal process, result in a loss of control over narratives and disclosures related to the case, and result in the story being discussed in unintended ways, such as by including conversations regarding the race and sexuality of the perpetrator. Ultimately, all of these can prevent swift and effective justice for the victim.

# data[].attributes.headline
3. "Mortgage lender suffers hack, credit card details published on dark web"

# data[].attributes.subject
3. "Mortgage lender suffers hack, credit card details published on dark web"

# data[].attributes.body
Hacking is a cyber-dependent cybercrime, meaning that it cannot exist without the assistance of a computer. The hacking “gang” in this case, called EMBARGO, exemplifies a black hat hacking group, as they committed a cyber attack on a mortgage lending company (Firstmac) with malicious intentions to steal information and engage in further criminal acts, such as blackmail. A common motivation for hacking includes achieving monetary gain and power, which can be deduced as the motivator behind EMBARGO’s actions in this case as they used ransomware and gave Firstmac a ransom deadline.

According to subcultural theories of crime, the internet enables the creation of new subcultures that allow people to share a set of values and beliefs that are in  response to or in opposition with the broader culture. The subcultural theory of crime suggests that hacking subcultures allow individuals to form new bonds through hacking and earn status within the subculture by demonstrating their technical skills and knowledge. Similarly, social learning theories can explain why hacking groups such as EMBARGO may exist. According to social learning theories, individuals learn criminal behaviour through interactions with peers, which expose them to attitudes and beliefs that either support or discourage criminality. Under this theory, the behaviours of individuals are also influenced by anticipated rewards and punishments and attitudes and beliefs are reinforced by observing and imitating criminal behaviour. According to these theories, it can be speculated that within EMBARGO, various hackers continuously learn from each other to reinforce their belief system and encourage further criminal attitudes that lead to successful large-scale cyber attacks. This can also be a potential explanation for why cyber attacks are on the rise in Australia, compromising millions of people’s data.

Following the Optus breach, Australia has considered banning organisations from making ransomware payments and enacted new legislation that significantly increased the penalties that organisations must pay for serious and repeated breaches of customer data. However, these responses fail to be effectively proactive when dealing with cybercrime. There is a need for more funding into approaches focused on designing out cybercrime that increases the effort required to commit a cybercrime and reduces the rewards for hackers. Similarly, more resources allocated to addressing the policing challenge of training officers to understand, investigate, and being up-to-date on new trends and skills can also help with proactively addressing this problem.

# data[].attributes.headline
4. "Trans man bullied further after X shares takedown notice over alleged hate speech"

# data[].attributes.subject
4. "Trans man bullied further after X shares takedown notice over alleged hate speech"

# data[].attributes.body
The internet and social media has shifted the nature of interactions that individuals can have with one another. The concept of the digital drift illustrates the dynamic nature of digital criminality, highlighting how online crimes can evolve in response to changes in technology and social norms. For instance, cyber bullying, as seen in this case, is an example of a cyber–enabled crime, as bullying can occur without technology, but can also be facilitated in novel ways through the use of technology.

According to the concept of the digital drift, people can easily drift into and out of cyber crime and delinquency due to the nature of digital platforms that make certain delinquent behaviours more accessible. This is especially prevalent on social media where users can interact with each other under anonymous profiles.

Statistics show that minorities such as members of the LGBTQ+ community, as seen in this case, are at a higher risk of experiencing online abuse. This trend can be explored through routine activity theory. According to this theory, a crime occurs when there is a motivated offender, a suitable target, and a lack of capable supervision. It can be argued that the digital drift enables motivated offenders by allowing people who would not otherwise engage in bullying, to do it digitally on social media. With relevance to this case, the transgender victim served as a vulnerable target due to their non-conforming gender identity. Additionally, due to the digital setting of online harassment, there is also a lack of capable guardianship which further enables cyber bullying.

This case also demonstrates how online subcultures can form on social media to perpetuate digital harms. Given the fact that the original X user has a prominent following on the platform and is known for being anti-trans, it is not surprising that the victim in this case experienced further bullying. In this case, the anti-trans user’s account served as a hub for other individuals who share transphobic and homophobic beliefs to reinforce and encourage each other’s discriminatory behaviour.

This case also illustrates the jurisdictional challenges that occur when policing digital harms, as X is legally challenging the order from Australia's internet regulator that the tweet must be taken down so as to not infringe on the X user’s freedom of speech. Ultimately, this is a challenge that occurs when policing digital harms on social media as users can be from anywhere on the globe and all countries do not share the same laws with regards to online harassment and discrimination.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
When the social media site X was told to take down cyber abuse by Australia's internet regulator, it passed on the notice to the user who posted the alleged abuse - which led to its target facing more online bullying.

On 22 March, eSafety sent a notice to X, formerly Twitter, requesting that a tweet from 29 February posted by a prominent anti-trans user about an Australian trans man who is a leading LGBTQ+ health expert be taken down.

The regulator said it should be removed on the grounds it was in breach of Australia's online safety act. It was determined to be cyber abuse directed at an Australian adult, given it was found to misgender him, mock his gender identity and equated transgender identity with a psychiatric condition.

The user who posted the tweet in question shared the letter on his account to his over 400,000 followers and said in the replies that he had received a copy of the letter from X.

The first tweet in the thread has had over 2m impressions, according to X's metrics, with some of the nearly 1,000 replies targeting the person who complained to eSafety about the tweet.

On 30 March, X's global government affairs account confirmed it was blocking access to the tweet in Australia and would fight the notice.

"X is withholding the post in Australia in compliance with the order but intends to file a legal challenge to the order to protect its user's right to free speech."

The same user later posted a screenshot of the original tweet from the takedown letter, and that screenshot has not been removed from access in Australia.

A spokesperson for the eSafety commissioner said the type of content falling under the online abuse scheme must be both intended to cause serious harm and menacing, harassing or offensive in all circumstances.

"If the material only meets one of these two criteria, for example, if the post is offensive but is found to not be intended to cause serious harm, it will not be considered adult cyber abuse under the act," the spokesperson said.

"Importantly, the adult cyber abuse scheme does not regulate hurt feelings, purely reputational damage, bad online reviews, strong opinions or banter."

No fine has yet been issued and eSafety had not received any legal notices from X related to the notice since announcing it was planning legal action, Guardian Australia understands.

Under the adult cyberbullying scheme that was passed into law under the former Coalition government in 2021, platforms such as X can be fined close to $800,000 for failing to remove posts within 24 hours of the notice being received.

skip past newsletter promotion

Sign up to Afternoon Update

Our Australian afternoon update breaks down the key stories of the day, telling you what's happening and why it matters
Privacy Notice: Newsletters may contain info about charities, online ads, and content funded by outside parties. For more information see our Privacy Policy. We use Google reCaptcha to protect our website and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.
after newsletter promotion

Such formal notices are rarely issued, and not limited to X. In the past two financial years, eSafety reported it had issued five such formal notices to platforms.

In the 2022-2023 financial year alone, the regulator said it had received 2,644 complaints from adults regarding cyber abuse and made 601 informal requests to platforms seeking the removal of such material, with 466 of these cases resulting in material being removed.

David Sharaz, the partner of former Liberal staffer Brittany Higgins used the scheme in 2022 to get a tweet taken down targeting both he and Higgins, Guardian Australia reported last year. This occurred prior to Elon Musk purchasing the platform in November 2022.

While X has vowed to fight the notice to protect the user's free speech and fight the removal, users last month noticed that using "cisgender" in some tweets results in the platform reducing the visibility of that tweet, claiming it is in violation of the platform's hateful conduct policy.

Musk tweeted last year that cisgender, a 30-year-old term to describe someone whose gender corresponds to their sex assigned at birth, as "a heterosexual slur", despite the term also being applicable to non-heterosexual people. "Cis" is derived from Latin, meaning "on this side of", as in the opposite of trans.

Guardian Australia sought comment from X. The platform last year lodged a case in the federal court appealing a $610,000 eSafety fine notice issued to the company over how it tackles online child safety abuse. Esafety has also lodged a case in the court over X's failure to pay the fine. The case has yet to be heard.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Trans man bullied further after X shares takedown notice over alleged hate speech

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Watchdog said post was found to mock his gender identity and equated transgender identity with a psychiatric condition

# data[].attributes.headline
5."Mother Spent Months Cyber Bullying Her Own Daughter—Lifetime’s Making It A Movie"

# data[].attributes.subject
5."Mother Spent Months Cyber Bullying Her Own Daughter—Lifetime’s Making It A Movie"

# data[].attributes.body
This case exemplifies the digital drift, which refers to the ability for individuals to drift in and out of delinquency by entering and leaving digital spaces whenever they choose. For instance, in this case the perpetrator was secretly and anonymously bullying her daughter online, while simultaneously comforting the victim and trying to help law enforcement find the perpetrator when she was offline.

This case also highlights the need to equip local police with better resources and training to address cyber crime. According to the article, the FBI was involved in the investigation and discovered who the perpetrator of this case was only after the local law enforcement had exhausted their cybercrime resources. This meant that the victims had to endure the abuse for a longer period of time than they would have if the local police were better equipped to address this type of situation.

This is also an example of a cyber-enabled crime, as the perpetrator did not need technology to bully her daughter. However, technology allowed her to engage in this digital crime due to the ability for her to be anonymous, which often enables online bullying, as well as tools that were made easily available for her such as using a VPN which facilitated her actions.

In this case, the mother was sentenced to time in prison after pleading guilty to stalking a minor. While this is an American case, it shows that there is a need to expand the law in order to define more digital harms as actual crimes. This would help better protect victims of online abuse that are able to define their experiences within legal definitions and help to hold perpetrators of abuse more proportionately accountable. Contrastingly, in Victoria, due to amendments to the Crimes Act 1958, bullying is a punishable offence with a penalty of up to ten years imprisonment.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Mother Spent Months Cyber Bullying Her Own Daughter—Lifetime’s Making It A Movie

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
“I can’t imagine any parent saying such horrible things to her own daughter.” The post Mother Spent Months Cyber Bullying Her Own Daughter—Lifetime’s Making It A Movie first appeared on Bored Panda.