| |
G4EBT > VKREGS 01.04.03 13:07l 152 Lines 6011 Bytes #999 (0) @ WW
BID : DC0911G4EBT
Read: GUEST DB0FHN
Subj: Re: Grossly offensive language?
Path: DB0FHN<DB0RGB<DB0MRW<DB0ERF<DB0FBB<DB0GOS<ON0AR<ON0AR<GB7FCR
Sent: 030401/1103Z @:GB7FCR.#16.GBR.EU #:53614 [Blackpool] FBB-7.03a $:DC0911G4
From: G4EBT@GB7FCR.#16.GBR.EU
To : VKREGS@WW
Ian, G0TEZ wrote:-
> I have just received a personal message from a station purporting to be
> near Brisbane, a VK4.
> I will not send the bulletin out, or the full callsign as it's never
> been my policy to send SPs out as bulletins and it could be a stolen
> callsign.
> He quoted all my message and replied with a single line:
> "ANYONE WHO WOULD CQ ON70cm must have sh*t for brains!"
> It takes a great deal to annoy me but this message did.
> Perhaps they don't have anything about 'Grossly offensive language.'
> in the Australian licensing conditions.
Surprisingly the VK Regs don't include such a condition.
Check them out if you wish at:
http://www.aca.gov.au/legal/determin/lcd/amateur.htm
That doesn't mean that there isn't other VK legislation which would cover
such conduct, but I very much doubt that there have been any cases of such
behaviour having been acted upon by the ACA. It doesn't stop you e-mailing
them though.
In my dealings with the UK RA some two years ago about aspects of packet
radio, it was apparent that they view this sort of conduct as "in-band
QRM". Their main concern is that radio amateurs must not interfere with
other services, and get the hobby they deserve.
They will act on well-documented complaints, but when it comes to that,
maybe it's time to find another hobby, as many others have done in the
steady exodus from packet.
Although some behaviour on packet is unpleasant, it has to be viewed
against the background of prevailing standards of the day. Much of what
we see on packet is from disempowered old men, probably not in the best
of health, and with too much time on their hands, regressing back to
childhood behaviour. (Yes, I play my part in that).
I'm not saying we should use that as a benchmark for how low standards
should fall within amateur radio but for enforcement action to be taken,
the term "grossly offensive" is a subjective one. Experience on packet for
more than a decade indicates that it's never been any better, and bad as
it is, it could be a good deal worse.
The UK A.R. Licence Booklet, BR68, refers to the W.T. (Content of
Transmission) Regs 1988, which make it a criminal offence to:
"Send a message, communication or other matter in whatever form, that
is grossly offensive or of an indecent, obscene, or menacing character".
(Must be proved to the criminal standard of proof - "beyond reasonable
doubt"). It would also have to be proved that it was the alleged culprit
that sent the message - not someone pirating his callsign.
In the UK, (maybe elsewhere too), the RA only take legal action as a last
resort. They give advice first, and issue warning letters and cautions.
To put this into perspective, for the year to March 2002, the RA took the
following enforcement action:
Radio amateurs:
1 prosecution. (Repeater abuse). (150GBP fine, 250 costs).
No warning letters.
No cautions.
(One prosecution out of 57,000 amateurs).
CB AM:
10 prosecutions, 1,150 fines, 1,000 costs, 10 forfeiture orders.
3 cautions.
6 warning letters.
CB FM:
1 Prosecution - 350 fine, 790 costs, 1 forfeiture order.
3 Cautions.
17 Warning letters.
This confirms that CB has never been able to shake off its shabby image,
and shows why the RA are keen to support amateur radio as an alternative
hobby. (You can take CB out of the gutter, but you can't take the gutter
out of CB). The main focus of enforcement action in the UK is against
pirate radio broadcasting - not AR/CB.
The UK RA's website is at:
http://www.radio.gov.uk/topics/amateur
Apart from A.R. licence conditions, there can other possible consequences,
(no doubt in VK just as in UK). In the UK there's the Protection from
Harassment Act 1997, primarily enacted to deal with stalking by former
partners in failed relationships, but covering anyone who falls into the
category of:
"A person whose course of conduct causes another to fear, on at least
two occasions, that violence will be caused against him, is guilty of
an offence if he knows - or ought to know, that his conduct will cause
the other so to fear on each of those occasions".
("If a reasonable person in possession of the same information would think
that course of action would cause the other top fear on that occasion").
The Protection from Harassment Act 1997 can be viewed at:
http://www.legislation.hmso.gov.uk/acts/acts1997/1997040.htm
Although this Act was mainly aimed at stalking in person, it also covers
'phone calls, text messages, e-mails, etc. (I believe it's been used to
convict a former partner of a woman, who had set up a website with
intimate pictures, and abusive content to harass and embarrass her).
I'd say that where people expose themselves to most risks of action on
packet, is when they use intemperate language that could result in a civil
action for libel. Civil actions are based on the much lower burden of
proof "On the balance of probabilities".
On some occasions, people have got carried away in a heated debate and
called others "liars". That is most unwise. A "liar" is someone who knows
the truth, but deliberately tells an untruth. Someone who says something
that is untrue isn't a liar if he thought at the time what he said was
true. He's merely mistaken.
BTW, while the VK Amateur Radio Regs seem much less proscriptive than in
the UK, Australia has some of the strictest libel laws in the world.
I'm not trying to start another weary debate on VK Regs. I've posted this
for those who might want to look further at the issues by reference to
authoritative web-based sources, not merely to speculate on what the regs
might or might not say; what they'd like them to say; or what they think
they used to say, if only they could lay their hands on them. (You can do
this at your desk - you don't need to get on a 'plane to VK).
73 - David, G4EBT @ GB7FCR
Message timed: 11:53 on 2003-Apr-01
Message sent using WinPack-Telnet V6.70
(Registered).
Read previous mail | Read next mail
| |
