And in UK news: Two Years Jail for Web Trolls.

[Parasondox]

I'm all about that bass, about that bass... that's right, I said it.

Trolls *adjust microphone* TROLLS are a pain in the arse. They are no good pathetic, sad people who would rather waste their own times and be cruel to people, instead of GETTING A LIFE! Well that's my rant down. In the UK, they have just introduced a new law when it comes to internet trolling.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-29678989

Source: BBC News

Will a two year sentence work? Actually, the main question is, when does a message, become a "troll" message? Cause to few, it wouldn't seem offensive but to many, it's a pretty dark thing. If you can't even say it to someone's face, then maybe you shouldn't type it.

Let's be honest, their will be many many sides to this debate and I want to know what you think? Yes there will be sayings of, "If you don't like it, then don't use social media". Sound advice, however those who say it may be from a different generation. Unfortunately, and yes I do mean to say that word, many young people are too reliant on social media to communicate with others and has made it part of their lives a bit too much. So telling them to not use it, may be more difficult for them to do.

Does this law infringe on Free Speech or has the line been crossed too much by "trolls" that things like this has to become law to prevent abuse. There is always a negative to everything really and that outshines the positive.

Here is the main part of the article that should be highlighted;

Law change

Those who subject others to sexually offensive, verbally abusive or threatening material online are currently prosecuted in magistrates' courts under the Malicious Communications Act, with a maximum prison sentence of six months.

Under the act, which does not apply to Scotland, it is an offence to send another person a letter or electronic communication that contains an indecent or grossly offensive message, a threat or information which is false and known or believed by the sender to be false.

More serious cases could go to crown court under the new proposals, where the maximum sentence would be extended.

Mr Grayling announced earlier this month that the bill would also have an amendment dealing with so-called "revenge porn", with those posting such images on the internet facing two years in jail.

So we aren't talking about "I hate you" comments but more on the line of "I will rape you in your sleep". That made me feel sick saying that.

Tell us what you think?

 

[BathorysGraveland2]

Well, the problem arises that "trolling" is incredibly diverse. It can be something as simple as some low-key ribbing on someone to get a cheap reaction, to issuing forth death threats in explicitly detailed manners. So just using the term "troll" won't cut it, at all. As far as I can see, you'd need to separate threats of things like death and rape away from trolling, and consider it something more serious. Kind of like how hacking is seen as more serious than mere trolling.

Otherwise it'll end up like piracy - a war you can never win.

 

[J Tyran]

Abusive threats are not "free speech" so depending on what was said I have little problem with it, maximum sentences are almost never applied and unless someone was a repeat offender or carried out a particularly vile or sustained campaign of abuse I doubt courts would give a custodial sentence anyway. To get more than 12 months means the offender would have to go to Crown Court, it would have to be something pretty serious and/or extreme to be passed on from a Magistrate in the first place.

If you use a phone or SMS to abuse people its against the law, that should apply to other forms of electronic communication too.

 

[Nikolaz72]

As long as it requires more evidence as screencap I'm all for it. Two years for something you can incredibly almost insultingly easy be framed for (Anything can be faked by a child on the internet with the right knowledge) Is too dangerous.

This means the only places this could really work is like, Facebook. Where they are going to know if your account was compromised and you're using your real identity.

 

[Parasondox]

Abusive threats are not "free speech" so depending on what was said I have little problem with it, maximum sentences are almost never applied and unless someone was a repeat offender or carried out a particularly vile or sustained campaign of abuse I doubt courts would give a custodial sentence anyway. To get more than 12 months means the offender would have to go to Crown Court, it would have to be something pretty serious and/or extreme to be passed on from a Magistrate in the first place.

If you use a phone or SMS to abuse people its against the law, that should apply to other forms of electronic communication too.

Thank you. Abusive threats aren't free speech but whatever debate you get about Free speech, some would say and defend it by saying it is free speech. Threats and hate speeches is not what Freedom of Speech is about. With the sentence as you said, and others pointed out too, it would have to be something really serious involving harming someone, to warrant a crown/magistate court appearance.

This news headline isn't going to go away any time soon.

 

[Calbeck]

Claire Hardaker, an academic from Lancaster University who studies online aggression, said proving the intent of a threat on the internet was difficult for police.

"It's like your mum sending you a text saying 'I'm going to kill you' because maybe you forgot to bring something that she asked you to bring, versus somebody on the internet saying 'I'm going to kill you'," she said.

"You have to know the intent of the two different people and to know the intent of the stranger on the internet you've got to be able to read their mind.

"Proving intent, proving that they really meant it, that they had the means to carry it out, it's very difficult."

This has always been the crux of the problem, the requirement of showing intent. Unfortunately, the alternative seems to be to simply accept any claim of threat as credible on the face of it, with the result of jail time, which seems like most of the Internet would get locked up at some point.

I wonder if fines, for demonstrably extreme language resulting in actual harm (psychological included, with affirmation from a psychologist), might not be a more suitable way to go.

Heh. THAT measure might balance the UK's chequebook well into the century!

 

[Calbeck]

Thank you. Abusive threats aren't free speech but whatever debate you get about Free speech, some would say and defend it by saying it is free speech.

Much as I hate to say it, the liberal American Left is not in agreement, particularly not the ACLU. They've fought (and won) cases all the way to the US Supreme Court, defending the right of extremist groups to march and be heard --- regardless of speech content --- in public areas.

So until and unless that case law can be overturned, this idea would be DoA in the US.

 

[Calbeck]

it is an offence to send another person a letter or electronic communication that contains an indecent or grossly offensive message, a threat or information which is false and known or believed by the sender to be false.

According to that definition, those threatening fake 'legal firm' letters Wonga sent out to debtors should be landing someone with jail time, not a fine.

Mm. Worse, it could be construed to apply to any deliberate falsehood. Meaning courts could become embroiled in determining what the sender believed or knew to be false. If someone down the street sees smoke coming from a building and tweets to one of the residents that there is a fire (it turning out to be bad cooking habits at fault), he either might really have made a mistake or knew what was what but wanted to cause that person to panic.

 

[J Tyran]

Thank you. Abusive threats aren't free speech but whatever debate you get about Free speech, some would say and defend it by saying it is free speech.

Much as I hate to say it, the liberal American Left is not in agreement, particularly not the ACLU. They've fought (and won) cases all the way to the US Supreme Court, defending the right of extremist groups to march and be heard --- regardless of speech content --- in public areas.

So until and unless that case law can be overturned, this idea would be DoA in the US.

Groups that are considered "hate groups" are allowed rallies and marches here until it crosses a line, if a far right group like the EDL want an "anti immigration" rally they are allowed and the money for all the security (barricades, bringing in extra officers from other regional policevforces etc because anti anti-fascists often turn up and trouble starts if they are not separated) comes out of the public purse. If they all turned waving banners proclaiming "kill n*****s" or something equally disgusting they would soon find themselves being rounded up and the rally closed.

Same deal for things like "traditional marriage" supporters, if they all gathered outside Westminster or outside an Anglican conclave to protest they wouldn't be stopped. The kind of stuff the WBC did in the US wouldn't be tolerated because that would be classed as harassing the family of the deceased at funerals and their signs would be classed as offensive wherever they waved them, petitioning the government or institutions is fine but harassing individuals is not.

Things here strike a compromise I think, people can constructively express sentiments that some consider "hateful" without fear of recrimination from the state which is the true meaning of free speech in my view. I should add that things are a bit different in Northern Ireland, the provinces history is the obvious reason for that and the infamous "marching season" serves as a graphic example of why things are more complicated there.

 

[ryazoph]

This law made sense to protect telephone operators from preverts. Protecting people over the internet isn't so sensical.

 

[SentimentalGeek]

I think here in the UK, the pendulum's swung too far to the authoritarian side since Blair. When your average protest is kettled and democracy square torn up, something's amiss (and Tomlinson's death was a clear example of this).

I don't see a problem with this, however, so long as the definition's strict (repeated threats, weeks long harrassment etc) - I don't beleve that 16 year old girl I read about in GG would deserve jail, for instance.

 

[Nickolai77]

Under the act, which does not apply to Scotland, it is an offence to send another person a letter or electronic communication that contains an indecent or grossly offensive message, a threat or information which is false and known or believed by the sender to be false.

I think so long as the law considers the proportionality and frequency of threatening and harassing someone online then this is a perfectly reasonable amendment to the law. In particular it seems to target the worst kind of trolling- direct threats and harassment made against a particular person. Given that this sort of "trolling" can ruin peoples lives I'm fully in favour of this law.

 

[CymbaIine]

Can't this shit be prosecuted under existing laws? I am pretty sure ISIS supporters posting stuff condoning and glorifying the recent murders would be prosecuted under anti-terrorism laws not some special facebook law.