Television and radio personality Erin Molan has revealed the online abuse she copped from trolls was one of the major reasons she walked away from the NRL.
Ms Molan appeared before a Senate inquiry into “anti-trolling” legislation on Thursday.
The Morrison government insists its world-first legislation would help unmask trolls who hide behind their keyboards.
But critics says the scope of the bill is too narrow and the proposed laws are more about defamation than combating online abuse.
Addressing the Senate inquiry, Ms Molan’s revealed for the first time she walked away from a lucrative Nine NRL gig because of “humiliating and traumatic” attacks.
“I haven't said that publicly before but the trolling element and some of the attacks that I’ve been subjected to for a long time now are probably one of the big contributors of me walking away from rugby league,” she said.
In one instance, the 39-year-old Sky News contributor said a user threatened to push her in front of a bus. Another user said she should be raped.
“I’m a big girl, I’m very resilient. I can handle people disliking me and people disagreeing with me. I can handle people having an opinion,” Ms Molan said.
“You really just feel like you have no avenue to address (it) whatsoever.
“Things that would be written about me on sites like Facebook, Instagram, and Twitter … suggesting how I got certain jobs or things that people were saying that I would do with players were completely untrue.
“I had no means to defend myself … it was very damaging and you know to take action in court is incredibly expensive.”
The government’s bill would provide a mechanism for Australians to obtain contact details of the poster of abusive material, providing an avenue for potential defamation action.
But lawyer and writer Nyadol Nyuon said the sheer cost of undertaking a defamation claim would be a major barrier for many Australians, especially migrant woman.
She added even though she had received racist attacxjmtzywks from anonymous trolls, she would be unlikely to use the powers afforded by the bill herself.
“The sheer volume of it makes it almost hard to be able to deal with each individual that comes with it,” she said.
“If I were to dedicate my time to trying to expose everyone, it would be unmanageable.
“I can assure you even as a very privileged woman who works a full time job, I would think twice before putting my money on a defamation claim.”
In a submission to the inquiry, the Law Council of Australia said the bill would have a limited ability to address trolling.
“Defamatory material comprises only a small component of trolling activity online and despite the proposed reforms, defamation law is likely to continue to be … a relatively ineffective mechanism for seeking individual reputational redress and for reducing trolling activity on social media,” it said.
Just last month, officials from the Attorney-General’s department conceded the bill’s title was potentially misleading.
“I didn’t convey myself that it was misleading,” department official Michael Johnson said.
“But I do acknowledge that there has been an amount of feedback through the consultation process and that does raise that conclusion.
“But to be clear that the bill is about defamation and it is not intended to address broader types of online harm.”
