VIC 'Publishing on the Internet' - Breach of Intervention Order?

[GlassHalfFull]

Sammy, I totally agree with you that common sense should and probably in most cases does prevail. But we all know that not all cops (and magistrates) are fair. Some are corrupt. Some are simply covering their asses in this political landscape where men are inherently monsters and women are inherently victims that need protection from said monsters.

The point is, when the law (the one thing all of us can rely on for consistency) is both vague and far-reaching, the potential does exist for it to be exploited when common sense is ignored. All it takes is one jobsworth cop police officer and magistrate and you could receive a criminal record for something that should never have been a crime in the first place according to 'common sense'. I know the point of the post is to determine how to navigate this silly law rather than why it should be amended, but the fact does remain that without case law demonstrating what the practical limits of 'publishing on the internet' are, it's a law that could get any of us into criminal strife.

It reminds me of that poem by the German priest regarding the rise of the Nazis...
First they came ... - Wikipedia...

It seems like nobody will speak out against the injustice of IVOs because it doesn't affect them. Until it inadvertently does.

 

[sammy01]

Hey, I like the poem... And I tend to agree (kinda)...

But I think you've missed the target. I lay blame squarely on the legislators that passed these laws where there is no innocent until proven guilty. Where in QLD they have a minimum 5 year lifetime warranty, where there is a presumption of guilt...

Have a read.
Domestic violence orders | Your rights, crime and the law | Queensland Government

5 years - Wow... Generally, I argue that accepting without admission is a bitter pill to swallow but one that is worth it... But 5 years?

The first paragraph establishes that having an AVO made against you means you have been violent and it matters little that if you choose to accept without admission. Their wording indicates guilt.
And where the accused is forbidden from directly questioning the accuser. All basic tenets on which our legal system is built.

Worse - the men's support group that I once participated in was closed down... The youth centre that we met in decided it was against their policy to allow the group the rent their space outside their operational hours because it was inappropriate to have men who have avo's in a place that is meant for kids - even though there were never ever any kids there when the meetings were held. Or for that matter that legal aid won't touch you if you've got an avo. And don't get me started on the fact that when I went to the community centre and asked to speak to someone about DV I was told that the govt funded DV caseworker only sees women...

But - I do think the cops and the magistrates are at the point-end of all of this. I'm sure cops didn't become cops to do this sort of stuff and I'm sure the magistrates are not enjoying seeing their courts used as a strategy in family law...

Rant over

 

[Tangent Runner]

So can anyone respond to the question ?

What does - Publish to the internet - legally mean ?

Particularly in relation to breach of intervention order ?

 

[Tangent Runner]

BTW - the background is she works for the police force,
and had friends authorise the charges.....

An example of how bizarre some of the charges are....

One was for sharing a story about fathers rights on facebook no names, no insults, just sharing the story - she didn't like it....

One is for sending an email to her lawyer, complaining about
the psychological damage she is doing to the children,
the lawyer gave it to her, she didn't like it....

 

[Tangent Runner]

Yes - my IVO had the bit about communicating for the purpose of mediation etc too...
There were also family law court orders - that permitted the behaviours I have been charged for....
None of it stopped the police from charging me...


Providing the DPP with these explanations - hasn't stopped them from prosecuting
the matter either....And I have repeatedly pointed out to judges, how stupid and frivolous
the alleged conduct is, but they don't throw the charges out of court....


I don't need you to redefine the question - it was again -....

What does "publish to the internet" specifically mean - legally .....!


As for your idea that "intent" is relevant - you must not be aware that Victorian Courts are
treating breach IVO as a "strict liability" offence.
"intention was to harass " is not something the DPP feels it has to prove...

 

[Tangent Runner]

Re the facebook pages - I blocked everyone associated with her, but she
recruited a spy - in the form of the partner of a mate I was staying with
- to take screen shots of the privately shared stuff on facebook, and
send it to her, which she took to the police.... you can tell from the exhibits
in the brief - this is exactly what occurred... At the time, I asked, and
both the mate and his partner - denied being in contact with the X....

 

[Tangent Runner]

Re the emails - some of the things that occurred - include - she unlawfully accessed
my Gmail account and programmed it to forward emails to her - this fact
is obvious from the exhibits in the brief....the police don't care.

 

[sammy01]

Ok so the link relates to NSW but again, they're all pretty similar across the country.

Mandatory and additional orders

Based on this you did breach the avo by contacting her solicitor directly. So assuming the same applies in Vic, they've got you on that one. From there you're on your way because they're able to get you on pretty much all of the other stuff.

So back to def of publish Responding to an intervention order (FVIO) | Magistrates Court of Victoria


The respondent must not

• publish on the internet or by email or social media or other electronic communication any material about the protected person.

So yep, facebook posts, a post on a single father's forum, an email are all breaches.

So I reckon you've breached. How she came to have the evidence is problematic. But it doesn't change the fact that you did breach the avo. So you could apply for an avo against her for what ever she did to make the emails get forwarded to her.. I doubt you've got enough though.

So lesson learnt - Publish means publish.
Email to solicitor is a breach - putting stuff on facebook is a breach. How the cops came to have any of this information doesn't change the fact. The whole programming the Gmail. Definately dodgy but given the other stuff that they can definately hang you on and she can claim it was a shared gmail account...

I reckon you need to understand with gusto something I said earlier.... The laws are bad, that is just my opinion. But the important bit is the laws definately offer unscrupulous punters the capacity to make an ex's life bloody terrible. You seem to be in that situation. You also seem to have made some pretty terrible mistakes along the way. So while you said you didn't want a lecture. Fine, but I do have some advice - get a solicitor. Don't write to her solicitor and learn to play this situation a hell of a lot better.

Mate - outa interest please let us know how you go defending yourself on these ones - but I reckon a solicitor might recommend you plead guilty. WHY? Well the one where you emailed her solicitor is gonna be a breach. They've got you on that one. If, as you've suggested the email could be percieved as threatening and for that to be the case I reckon all it needs is to be critical of her and clearly based on what you've written it is, or at very least could be seen that way. So from here it is easy to paint a picture to present to the judge that shows you've not taken any of this very seriously.

BTW I don't agree with this stuff. But they've got you on 3-4 different electronic platforms where you're talking directly about her. Not just one. It shows a pattern and is indicative of stalking / harassment. Again, I don't agree. This stuff is madness and it is not the intention of AVO's. But this is the situation you're in, so you really do need to be very careful moving forwarrd.

 

[sammy01]

Oh I could not help myself. Here is about as definitive a def as you're gonna get.
http://www.legislation.vic.gov.au/D...6693BD7BA5ACA257797001BADA2/$FILE/10-053a.pdf
pg 91. Mate you've breached simply by saying she works for vic police.

Mate take this stuff seriously.

 

[Tangent Runner]

Not sure if you can read...

Um.... "She".... is not a protected person named in the IVO...
there are a lot of females working for vic pol.....
So I beg to differ..... unless "About" is anything that resembles a
potentially an obscure reference to...."She" who shall not be named....

Which is ridiculous - because if I posted the words "I am sad" on Facebook,
well, that could be about her - couldn't it... eh ?

Ummm - the IVO and the family law court orders allow for communication,
and are you saying - really? - that a person may not legitimately communicate
with the other parents' legal representative? Have you never heard that
communication between legal representatives - is private and confidential?
I believe there are plenty of case laws - to that effect...

So I am self-represented - so it's like lawyer to lawyer.... which cannot
mean published....and in any case - it was sent to her lawyer, not her,
and her lawyer passed it on - which given the lawyer knew about the
IVO - would have to make her guilty of aid and abet...

Sharing another person's post about fathers' rights - that does not contain any names,
cannot be a breach - because it doesn't contain any information about any person
named in the IVO..... The IVO did not say - you may not post about fathers' rights...
- get it?

Yes I have read the act - it does not contain a definition of the term
"Publish to the internet" - so seems you really don't know - eh?

What on earth makes you think I am not taking it seriously?

So you think an IVO - given the purpose of the legislation outlined at the start,
is to make it illegal to even criticise her conduct - when it is harming the children?
Gee - I don't think that makes sense - given the wording of the legislation,
and it's clear intent to protect the vulnerable...

FYI - stalking is behaviour that is intended - to put a reasonable person in fear
of harm etc.... it can be reckless, but the point is - it is malicious conduct...
with a man's element...

I didn't suggest the email was threatening - I said she didn't like it...
But you sound just like a lawyer - "it might be perceived as threatening,"
so better plead guilty...

Oliver Sacks - wrote a story about a man who PERCEIVED his wife
to be a hat...... my point being not all perceptions are reasonable and valid...
The question at law is would a reasonable person perceive it as threatening?

I perceive your inability to provide a rational answer as "threatening"
So perhaps, I should go get an IVO and breach you next time you
make silly comments... eh?

Re the Gmail - so you reckon she can claim it was a shared account?
How? On what basis?
Was she authorised to access it? NO.......!!!
Did she have the password? No...!

Publish means Publish...what a dumb response...
please don't bother replying anymore...

At least you could bother with an online dictionary
and educate yourself to the fact "publish" actually
has a common english meaning - which if I recall correctly,
is what applies legally - when the legislation does not
provide a specific definition....and it clearly means
make available to the public.... which logically excludes
an email to her lawyer....or a post shared privately...

publish
/ˈpʌblɪʃ/
Learn to pronounce
verb

1. 1.
   prepare and issue (a book, journal, or piece of music) for public sale.
   "we publish practical reference books"
   synonyms: issue, bring out, produce, print
   "we want to publish good-quality literary works"

And given we are not talking a libel case - the second speciality
definition does not apply, and if there is a doubt, then the doubt
falls in my favour - as which version of "publish" the IVO intends
was not specified.... when the police served the IVO...

So yeah - I will fight this, and I don't care if I lose,
It's a matter of standing up for what is right...

Not just pleading guilty for the sake of saving court time...

Finally re P91 of the act

S124......124 Exception to restriction on publication To remove any doubt, it is declared that section 123 does not apply to
— (a) a person publishing or causing the publication of, a report about the proceeding or the order if the publication does
not identify the locality of a court or particulars likely to identify a venue of a court, or particulars of a person; or

So particulars is the specific (particular) person.... as in their particular identity....
So if you can work out who "She" is just by reading that she works for the police
force....- wow.... you are really awesome... Personally, I don't think that is
likely to identify her in particular....

I beg to differ about Laws are bad - the law is inherently good
and sure legislation can be worded poorly, but it is rarely if ever "bad..."
particularly if you are capable of reading and understanding
the intent / purpose at the start...

- it's the lawyers and their predilection to twist and torture
words and the truth - that make the justice system bad....

Which seems to be how to Publish - came to include "private email"....