+ + + 3 BRANDNEW NewsTickers for your Website! + + + easy configurable in less than 1 Minute + + + GET'EM NOW! + + +

   Home | Join | Submit News | MyShortNews | HighScores | FAQ'S | Forums 0 Users Online   
                 02/21/2018 02:10 PM  
  ShortNews Search
search all Channels
RSS feeds
  ShortNews User Poll
Are you excited about the holiday season?
  Latest Events
  3.039 Visits   3 Assessments  Show users who Rated this:
Quality:Very Good
Back to Overview  
04/11/2010 10:12 AM ID: 83732 Permalink   

Senator Proposes up to Five Years in Jail for Lying About Your Age on the Internet


Australia: Senator Nick Xenophon has proposed a law that would punish misrepresenting your age to minors on the Internet with up to five years in jail, saying that "we´ve got 20th-century laws trying to deal with 21st-century problems."

His call comes in the wake of the Carly Ryan murder. The teenager was lured to her death by 50-year-old Garry Newman, who posed as 20-year-old ´Brandon Kane´ online. The proposal has been attacked by a number of officials around the country.

South Australian Police Commissioner Malcolm Hyde said the proposal was well-meaning but warned that it would criminalise "humorous, innocent and erroneous transmissions, where the sender may have no unlawful intentions."

    WebReporter: ixuzus Show Calling Card      
ASSESS this news: BLOCK this news. Reason:
  As for the law it is so true about the UK to...  
"we´ve got 20th-century laws trying to deal with 21st-century problems."

Why would anyone want to change the truth about your age? Unless you were a parent checking on your child.
  by: captainJane     04/11/2010 04:07 PM     
  While they are at it...  
They should propose a punishment for women who lie about their age when in bars or other dating environments.
  by: opinionated   04/11/2010 04:34 PM     
Very simple. I often change the DOB I give a site because I don´t trust them with my real details. I have absolutely no desire to have my identity stolen. Usually I´ll only go 1-2 years up or down but if, for example, I should be playing a game of free poker online with an account which shows me as a year younger than I am (late twenties for the record) and a 16-year-old joins the table this law would say I should go to jail. Now you may say ´yes, but they wouldn´t prosecute that´ but the real test of a law is how badly could it be misused in the hands of a power-hungry maniac. This law is another fail from a nutjob senator I hope we get rid of at the next election.
  by: ixuzus     04/11/2010 04:39 PM     
  Got you now...  
so they would just take advantage of parents fears to my a wad of cash. They make me sick.

I have only used this site and my own so did not think of it like that.

Thank you for the pointers!

  by: captainJane     04/11/2010 05:20 PM     
  I Never Tell the Truth about Anything  
on the Internet. It´s interesting watching the lies come back to me.

My personal information isn´t anyone´s business. I have a 6th grade education and make $250,00 a year, and am Asian.

How about a law against lying to defraud?
  by: Jim8   04/11/2010 05:28 PM     
  @ Jim...  
I find it sad, us as social human beings have to resort to such low levels.

  by: captainJane     04/11/2010 05:35 PM     
Then again, why does a web site need to know my level of education, my age, and my household income?
  by: ixuzus     04/11/2010 05:46 PM     
Because if he´d actually been twenty he wouldn´t have killed her.

  by: bbeljefe     04/11/2010 06:32 PM     
Maybe if people used common sense and parents actually bothered to monitor the children´s internet usage we wouldn´t have this problem.
  by: nwalmaer   04/12/2010 12:53 AM     
  Why is it...  
All of the stories posted on this site recently that have to do with using electronics/information media to violate a person´s privacy has come out of Australia?
  by: moxpearl   04/12/2010 06:08 AM     
  Prison for Lying about Rank  
How about a Jail sentence, for anyone who lies about having a certain Military or Nautical Rank on the internet. For instance in a username.

Since it´s also a military rank, perhaps the individual would actually be brought before a military tribunal, without the rights of a standard trial. Let´s say, for example, a person that may, or may not, be a true "captain", and therefore might lure another individual into thinking they were an official authority of some kind. Might deserve 25 to life for something that severe. Sound like a go?
  by: THE ACTUAL STORY   04/12/2010 08:13 AM     
  But officer,  
I wasn´t lying about my age, I was using hexadecimal...
  by: Moral_Hazard   04/12/2010 08:25 AM     
Because we as a society would rather shift the burden of parenting from the parent to the government.

I propose a internet license, if you have children under the age of sixteen you are required to pass a test in order to gain access to the internet.
Questions could be like this....
Whos responsibility is it to monitor the content your children are looking at:
A) Me
B) The Government
C) Anybody but me

If you find out that someone is grooming your child online what should you do:
A) Ask how much money they make
B) Contact the Authorities
C) Do nothing, kids have to learn some how
D) Contact NAMBLA
  by: shiftyfarker   04/12/2010 08:30 AM     
  ShiftyFarker = FAILS his own Test.  
FAIL: This person named ShiftyFarker just Failed his own test.

So first he rants about how people are stupid to want the Government enact laws against real criminals in order to help protect their children. Then he BLAMES the child and the parent for bad parenting for not being able to monitor their children 24/7, instead of the potential criminal out there. Already Pompous.

But the kicker is, he then concocts a fake test, in an attempt to ridicule parents, implying that anyone who picks B) The Government, as who should be responsible for policing illicit content is stupid and would fail the test and shouldn´t be allowed on the internet....

Then in his very next question, he writes:

If you find out that someone is grooming your child online what should you do:

Where he is still scoffing that a person is again stupid if they pick anything else other than:

B) Contact the Authorities

"The Authorities" namely being the Police which are part of guess what! THE GOVERNMENT!

And the Police couldn´t very well do a damn thing unless there was a LAW they could act under (passed by the Government)!

This guy just contradicted himself, and FAILED his own test.

Now, this Australian Senator, who dreamed up this 5-yr prison term for someone lying about their age on some blog signup is inane, and that´s not the answer to anything. But this shiftyfarker´s retort is even worse.

And for that matter, any person who champions this ´blame the child or blame the parents´ and condone the criminals and the progenitors of illicit acts is full of it.

This is the same kind of person, who, if a person was a victim of a crime, say had their wallet stolen or something, there´s the type of person who goes around scoffing, blaming the man, and saying something like, well, serves the damn idiot right he shouldn´t have kept it visible in his back-pocket like that. Or something of that ilk. THAT IS BS. The person who is the victim of theft is not the culprit to be blamed. It´s the thief who committed the crime in the first place!

And it´s not the place to be cheering and condoning criminals, whom they think should be allowed to taint the streets, and leave the Good people cowering inside their homes behind locked doors afraid to even take their child for a walk to see the trees in the park. NO! It´s the Good person who not only should be able to, but should have the RIGHT to go out, own the street, go wherever they want, and whenever they want WITHOUT fear of getting Jacked, not everyone cowering at home in the dark while malicious culprits get to roam at will.

These kinds of people who blame the victim are in the same category of those who blame a woman for going out or dressing a certain way and getting raped, instead of the rapist. This is a foul position and has no place in the 21st century.

Although Jail for simply an age post is ridiculous, this "it´s the parents responsibility and fault, not the criminal" crap is even more disgusting.

A more reasonable portion of one solution, is something like finally getting ICANN to get off their rears and institute the .xxx domain for example, and then a lot of the explicit providers could put their content on whatever they want on there, and then computers could be more easily set to not show anything on a .xxx domain for example. It´s not a solution for everything. Nothing is. But it´s a reasonable, and doable option, and for the rest, the Police (paid by the Government!) can act using laws (made by the government!) when an actual instance of illicit behaviour has enough probable cause to investigate.

Education and Responsibility all around is the Answer.
  by: THE ACTUAL STORY   04/12/2010 11:40 AM     
Did i say which ones were the right answers to my questions?

I am not going to go point by point cause you seem about as coherent as a sixteen year old girl on her rags.

I am not exactly sure how you comparing online predators to pickpockets works, usually you don´t arrest the pickpocket until they have actually committed a crime.
I am not even going to bother, blah.
  by: shiftyfarker   04/12/2010 12:14 PM     
  ShiftyFarker Digging yourself Deeper  
ShiftyFarker you´ve now somehow managed to make your situation even worse. You should probably wrap it up and stop now before you dig yourself even deeper.

ShiftyFarker wrote: "Did i say which ones were the right answers to my questions?"

So now you´re attempting to say that you didn´t mean one of the regular choices as the right answer, now you are saying your pick is one of the extremist ones!

ShiftyFarker wrote: "I propose a internet license, if you have children under the age of sixteen you are required to pass a test in order to gain access to the internet.
Questions could be like this....
Whos responsibility is it to monitor the content your children are looking at:
A) Me
B) The Government
C) Anybody but me

Everyone knows Full well you intended the answer to be (A), consistent with your rant, and mocking with answers B, C, and D.

Now you´re claiming that may not be the case, which means you´re insinuating that you meant 1 of the answers B, C, or D! You´re making it worse.

You wrote: "Because we as a society would rather shift the burden of parenting from the parent to the government." = you being sarcastic, scoffing at people who would pick "Government".

So if you choose (B) Government, now you just made yourself a hypocrite.

So if it´s not (A) and not (B) then you now trying to say "C) Anybody but me" is what you meant, that makes you not only a hypocrite, but wacky.

That leaves (D) NAMBLA! (which by the way, this ShiftyFarker guy has put in here because for those who don´t know, NAMBLA is a known pedo organization, I had to look it up. It´s the Natl MAN-BOY LOVE Association! It´s a group out there whose members are paedophiles!)

IF you meant the answer (D) as the right answer, and you weren´t putting it down like I assumed you would, then you´re not only making yourself look even more wacko, but also dangerous to be on here.

And that´s all the answers you got, buddy. I had picked the one that made you the least aberrant, leave it to you, to dig yourself deeper.

And as for your remaining question #2:

ShiftyFarker: "If you find out that someone is grooming your child online what should you do:
A) Ask how much money they make
B) Contact the Authorities
C) Do nothing, kids have to learn some how
D) Contact NAMBLA"

Now you´re making yourself look like you´re claiming you WOULDN´T call the authorities of some man attempted to entrap your own child, and instead you´d either (A) "Ask how much money they make", (C) "Do nothing", or (C) "Contact NAMBLA" again! - Calling the Authorities is what EVERY usual person would do, and you´re making yourself look worse by saying no, you´d do one of the other 3 that you wrote.

But what´s even more troubling is the rest of the material you now began posting...

ShiftyFarker posted the insult: "you seem about as coherent as a sixteen year old girl on her rags."

Now, omitting for now the obvious questions regarding your own username "Shifty" "Farker", you´ve now invoked remarks about the pubic area of an underage girl (YOUR OWN Remarks here). So instead of addressing the topic (you: "I am not going to"), or you just admitting you screwed up, you choose to make a personal attack, and out of all the possible insults or things in the universe that one could think of to say, You picked a remark about the vaginal period of an underage 16 year old girl!

You had better just stop there and leave it that you messed up, because the more you post the more you are making yourself look worse. Questionable, even.
  by: THE ACTUAL STORY   04/12/2010 09:00 PM     
I am not even going to read your post cause i really couldn´t give a f*ck.

Go argue with your self.
  by: shiftyfarker   04/13/2010 12:41 AM     
wtf was that? oh snap shift! you just got an e-bitchslap. someone tell that guy he shouldnt be so serious, its the internet.
  by: matr1x   04/13/2010 12:52 AM     
Lol. I lost all my ecred now, i just don´t know whats left for me.

I thought it was obvious that i had placed a greater emphasis on me being a dickhead, rather then actually trying to put down some coherent thought.
It´s obvious that in this instance he was far more dedicated then i was.
  by: shiftyfarker   04/13/2010 01:20 AM     
  at first i thought it  
was one of havocs ramblings because of the fact i had to scroll 15times to get thru the first reply.

but no, its someone new. great...

that´s all we needed here, 2 people who post life stories on each thread.

and yes, he was far more dedicated.
  by: matr1x   04/13/2010 01:33 AM     
  LOL @ TAC  
Easy killer. After reading your dissertations I still can´t pinpoint just where you stand.

I think what you´re saying is that parents are always responsible for monitoring what their kids view on the interwebz but that when parents find that their kids are being courted by suspected perverts, the government should take over. If that´s your stance, I concur. After all, one of government´s primary purposes is to enforce our laws.

As for shifty and his comments, I don´t agree with internet licensing and I´m also pretty sure he made his comment tongue in cheek.

Oh and, the thing where you attempted to point him out as a kid toucher because he mentioned you were acting like a sixteen year old girl on the rag is a complete stretch. Maybe you haven´t been around many women or female children and in case you haven´t I´ll let you in on a well known secret...

Sixteen year old females are usually emotional roller coasters and women of any age, who are having their period, often are as well. So what shifty was saying is that you were being more emotionally unstable than a sixteen year old girl on the rag.

It was you who thought about sixteen year old vaginas when all that was offered you was a sixteen year old´s thought process.

  by: bbeljefe     04/13/2010 04:49 AM     
  The actual story  
can´t believe i actually suffered through both those posts. In your first post you seem to be stuck on two ideas 1) you think shifty was implying that criminals should take no blame and that only the victim should and 2) you assume there aren´t already laws against luring kids online.

To address your first misconception shifty was not implying that criminals suffer no blame and never even mentions criminals at all. He simply makes the claim that people need to watch out for themselves and their children. There will always be people in the world who would try to harm you or your family that is a fact and it always will be and you can´t simply rely on the government to take care of all those threats, that´s just naive. you need to watch out for yourself too. To use your example I go walking around downtown Detroit with $50 bills sticking out of my pocket cause i´m a straight baller and those bills get stolen from me. I´m going to feel pretty stupid and no one is going to feel bad for me. That does not imply that whoever stole the money was justified and it doesn´t lessen the severity of the crime at all but it is still partly my fault for not being cautious.

Secondly Shifty was trying to make the point that if parents monitored their kids activity online they would be able to find out if their children are being lured and they could contact the police who can act according to laws that already exist. It is not necessary to add some law about stating your age since there are already laws against luring children online. If you want to make the punishment for luring children more severe then do just that with the existing laws don´t make some new overly general law which will only open the door to abuse.
  by: hothot   04/13/2010 05:06 AM     
In my case it is very similar to ixuzus´s. Usually when I sign up for a site, I´ll use the same birthday 01/01/1982. This is for simplicity sake more than anything else (i make sure to keep the same year of my real birthday so I don´t forget the date in case of a forgotten password).
  by: Vash_the_Stampede     04/13/2010 06:16 AM     
a police officer gets on line and lies that they are a young girl underage, then a guy lies to the lying police officer about his age to trying to trap sex offenders. so it´s legal for police to lie but the public does not have the same right. what is wrong with that picture? now, if it is known that the police lyed to make the arrest, just how creditable is his testimony on court? he is an admitted lier. .
  by: shannon853   04/13/2010 11:31 PM     
  I´ve been saying it for years  
You should have to sign a waiver if you want internet access, acknowledging that there are really evil people out there that might hurt your feelings, or that might say something that´s untrue to get what they want. This would end all of the BS stupid lawsuits and blaming each other for our troubles.

If you´re unstable or can´t take criticism (constructive or otherwise), get off the net. The internet is not a safe place. That´s what makes it so fun and involving. I´m posting on this site, and I know that there may be people that disagree with me, and I´m willing to take the risk that that they might be insulting when they reply to me. I lie to almost every site about my personal details for one simple reason: it´s none of their god d**ned business how old I am or what color my hair is or what kind of car I drive. I have two kids, and when they are using the internet they have the notebook screen pointed towards me so I can see what they are doing. Is that really so damned difficult?

Apologizing now for seeming to be irate about this. This is one of my pet peeves, and you can me sure that if someone says something bad about me here I´m not going to string up a belt in my closet and hang myself.

One last thing, though. I´m really not surprised that it´s AU that´s doing this. Someone there hates the free flow of information. They´d fit right in in China or Ukraine. Next thing we´ll see will be a new Iron Curtain. Fidel Castro probably has an orgasm every time someone comes up with a new internet law there.
  by: WillyMaykett   04/14/2010 01:58 AM     
  typical banter near an election  
This is just a tactic... Freedom of Speech included telling someone your age...

This will not even make it into a committee due to its constitutional implications and the Senator knows it.
  by: richie65x   04/14/2010 03:57 AM     
What constitutional implications, where in the constitution does it say that you have the right to free speech?

The only thing close is free political speech and that is limited.
  by: shiftyfarker   04/14/2010 08:01 AM     
me thinks someone didn´t RTFA or summary for that matter, and just assumed it was US cause the word senator.

OR, he didn´t know AUS doesn´t have the same "freedoms"...
  by: matr1x   04/14/2010 01:10 PM     
  Things like this...  
are difficult. On the one hand, you have a dead horny 16-year old because of a 50-year old perverted murderer. On the other hand, if this girl had any common sense or self-respect, she wouldn´t meet someone from the Internet without interacting with them in other ways such as webcams, telephone, etc...and she would still be alive.

It´s too easy for someone to claim to be someone else with just pictures. Everyone who has the internet these days has a webcam or can easily afford one...and absolutely everyone has a phone (be it landline or cell).

Personally, I´m a fairly confident 27 year old male (more or less tired of the bar scene) and have met up with a few women through sites like MySpace and other avenues...but I´ve also made sure to know who these people were (in the ways I described) before meeting.

The threat of being raped and murdered isn´t exclusive to the female gender. There are sickos out there that kill men as well.

Another ("shallow-ish", but not really) reason why webcam chats are important to have before meeting is to be sure the person is honest with their pictures...not just with their identity. A great majority of people don´t lie too over-the-top about who they are, but they won´t bat an eyelash at representing themselves with a picture of them from 6 or 7 years ago.

Anyways, I´ve gone slightly off-topic as I sometimes do...but the main points are clear. Male or female, don´t meet anyone from the Internet until you are absolutely sure they are honest...or at least honest enough not to be unstable in the head.

I´m a strong supporter of meeting people over the Internet (be it for relationships or just friends) because it´s much easier to find others who share the same interests or have the qualities that you desire in a potential serious relationship. It cuts out all the noise and ruckuss of life and gives you something to look forward to everyday when you check your email after work (or multiple times a day). When done properly, it enables people to get to know eachother without the "extra complications" that "physicality" can sometimes introduce and even end up bad. Building a solid foundation is important...but now I´m still off-topic and sounding old. I definitely wouldn´t have caught myself saying stuff like this 8 or 9 years ago,´s true though and it´s just what I´ve learned through my experience.

Yes, I´ll shut it now...
  by: GagnierA   04/15/2010 02:03 PM     
WTF dood!!! Don´t know how anyone could miss this question on a test...


Religion and Expression

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.
  by: richie65x   04/15/2010 02:15 PM     
In case you didn´t read or understand matrix´s post along with the article...

This is not happening in the United States of America, it is happening in Australia. Australia is a country in the southern hemisphere. You know, where hurricanes spin backward and water circles the drain backward. ;)

Australia does not abide by the constitution of the United States, it abides by its own constitution, which doesn´t contain the same words as the United States constitution.


  by: bbeljefe     04/16/2010 04:55 AM     
Down here we´ve got Kangaroos, Koalas, Echidnas, and no Bill of Rights or constitutional right to free speech.
  by: super_33   04/19/2010 04:19 AM     
  Got it... totally Pwnd my self  
I saw the word senator and just figured it was my good ole U.S and A.

Sorry for the distraction... Thanks for the correction!

Am I still in the running to win the Special Olympics?
  by: richie65x   04/19/2010 04:40 AM     
  How About 5 Years For A Senator Lying.  
If these politicians were held responsible for the truthfulness of their words the nation would be better off.
  by: ichi     04/19/2010 04:54 AM     
  No richie, no Special Oympics medal for you,  
but you do win one free internet for having a good sense of humor and a thick skin. :)

  by: bbeljefe     04/19/2010 05:18 AM     
Are you serious? Why should (comparatively) good honest criminals have to share their cells with that sort of pathological liars/sociopath?

In all seriousness, your idea or a variation on it has some merit.
  by: ixuzus     04/19/2010 05:54 AM     
Copyright ©2018 ShortNews GmbH & Co. KG, Contact: