Facebook removes Conroy murder fan page?

Facebook removes Conroy murder fan page?

Summary: Facebook appears to have removed a fan page stating that the phrase "someone should kill [Communications Minister] Senator Stephen Conroy" was "very illegal to say".

SHARE:

Facebook appears to have removed a fan page stating that the phrase "someone should kill [Communications Minister] Senator Stephen Conroy" was "very illegal to say".

The page, entitled "Someone should kill Senator Stephen Conroy ... is very illegal to say" — was available 9am Monday, but appears to have since been removed.

Stephen Conroy

The image the page used
(Credit: Facebook)

The page continued in its satirical tone that killing Senator Conroy would "only hinder, or possibly even HALT the Great Australian Firewall", referencing the minister's plans to introduce a mandatory filter to block "refused classification" material on the internet, something many groups have been vocal against, including search engine giants Yahoo and Google.

"SPREAD the message. Tell all your friends, and bring them in. There is A DISEASE in our land, where people would do harm TO SENATOR CONROY. We must MAKE people realise, that with HIM DEAD, it will strike a blow against the safety of our internet and our children," a message on the page said.

The page had around 50 "fans" when Google's cache last grabbed a copy of it on 9 April.

"Just a heads up that it's probably illegal to say that someone really, really should kill Senator Stephen Conroy before he turns this country into a fascist *hole like Iran," the description on the Facebook page said.

The page, including the picture that accompanied it, insinuated that someone should actually murder the minister, especially the image which darkened the colour of the words "don't" and "not".

Facebook was contacted for comment but had not replied at the time of publication.

So was it a good idea for Facebook to remove it? I think so. It was fairly obvious that the page wanted exactly the opposite of what it was saying — Conroy six feet under. Despite any policies the minister might be espousing, nothing would warrant such drastic action. We are supposed to still be a civilised nation.

Topics: Censorship, Government AU, Social Enterprise

Kick off your day with ZDNet's daily email newsletter. It's the freshest tech news and opinion, served hot. Get it.

Talkback

11 comments
Log in or register to join the discussion
  • How are people going to know what is legal or illegal to say now? This is terrible.
    garrusvakarian
  • This is horrible! Disgusting! How could anyone wish this man dead?

    The message must be spread that killing Senator Conroy will be detrimental to his marvelous Great Australian Firewall!
    It's a shame that this page came across as though they truly wanted Senator Conroy dead, I'm sure that's not what they wanted at all. I can see how the message may have come across that way - but if they're anything like me, surely they just wanted to get the message across that it would do no good to expose Australians to the Freedoms of the Internet.
    After all, the internet is not for porn.
    raptorsonbikes
  • Someone should kill ZDnet... would be very illegal to say.
    garrusvakarian
  • Thanks for letting me know what's illegal and what's not.

    I wonder what Facebook has to say about this, do they condone the killing of Conroy? Do they not wish people to know that it would be highly illegal?
    raptorsonbikes
  • Its not just Conroy's fault. He was influenced by the Australian Christian Lobbyists to actually filter the internet. It just shows that Australia, is NOT a multiculturalist society.I think all decisions are made in the word of god(Christianity). If all decisions are made by parliament, "in christian", then what will other people from different cultures think about it. Doesn't the government go to people from other cultures, and ask what they think? Because it just makes it a more slippery slope for both Mr Conroy(I mean, Marshal of the Filtering of the Internet, Comrade Conroy), while he continues to fight with his evangelical army of medieval decision makers, dropping nukes of sin, on "atheists".
    Libertarian-44ff3
  • I can understand peoples frustration towards Senator Conroy. Throughout this entire debate he has only shown contempt towards anyone who doesn't agree with what he wants to do. He's even gone as far as attacking opponents under the safety of Parliamentary Privileged, accusing opponents of being in favour of Child Pornography and sought to have one of the most outspoken critics fired from his job.

    Add to that the lies and misinformation Conroy has spread it's no surprise people are angry at him. Nothing about this plan is about achieving the goals he has set and by the way he changes near every time he's interviewed (policy on the run anyone?) but he is still pushing for the introduction of the mandatory filters. Makes you wonder about the real motive behind the filters.

    Does this mean people should be making death threats towards him or his family, of course not, but I can understand how people may feel better after doing so since we as opponents don't have as loud a voice, or the protection of Parliamentary Privileged that Conroy does so it's harder to get our message out.

    Not that we really need to, we have fact and truth on our side.
    AkiraDoe
  • I have to say, whoever wrote that was really trying on the old NLP wasnt he =P

    reading that the way it was intended it reads "Spread a disease to senator conroy make him dead" hahaha.

    Also the picture is made to subliminally suggest that killing conjob is a good idea =P

    not sure if it actually works, but im assuming the intent was an embeded nlp message.

    lol.
    Pablosan-1a609
  • I have been vocal in forums such as this one in my opposition to the proposed Internet filter, but I would a hundred times rather it go ahead than to have Conroy subjected to horrid threats, even more so when they are veiled in such a cowardly manner. People like the person or persons who set up that page are far more of a threat to the freedoms we enjoy in Australia than is the proposed filter.
    kipholbeck
  • This was so obviously a humorous attempt to put up a spoof site that it's hard to know how anybody could take it seriously.

    It's likely, though, that the sad types who desperately want to impose their secret censorship will now attempt to claim that their stance has been justified. And Conboy can vary his you-must-be-a-pedophile rhetoric by dramatically announcing "a death threat because he wants to save the children", a statement which sensible people will no doubt treat with well deserved contempt.
    gnome-8be8a
  • The real question is, as was mentioned before - why does Facebook not want people to know what is illegal and what isn't? With this group down, how are people going to know that suggesting that Conroy should be killed (or even killing him) is illegal?

    Facebook definitely has some serious questions to answer for themselves.
    raptorsonbikes
  • As a CHRISTIAN, I would have to say not all parliamentary decisions are based on God, I disagree with them at times!

    In relation to this internet filter... From what I understand it's not going to be a good thing and will be detrimental to the speed of the internet. Personally I don't want to go back to the dark ages in speed.

    Children need to be taught to avoid and also how to deal with illegal and disgusting activity at a young age. Without that, they will not know what to do and will then peruse and use and act with illegal items without understanding.

    I think that whether its blocked or not, people will still find a way if they really want it...
    Godsgirl-2c115