The House of Commons is about to start debating what some call "law against trolls". This is more properly described as an amendment to the Defamation Act, and involves abusive or offesive content rather than trolls.

The amendments mean website owners would be let off the hook for offensive content if they agree to hand over user details to allow civil cases to be pursued.

PH community thoughts? Useful articles from today:

Reuters - Internet trolls face tough new UK rules
Guardian Column - What is an internet troll?

On the one hand I welcome the possibility that website owners will feel pressured to censor their members for fear of legal action (ahem!) though it will be interesting to see if anything changes in practice.

However it could mean another erosion of internet anonymity and result in people being frightened to post freely for fear of incurring legal action. Perhaps the current system of a website being responsible for all content protects people from themselves to a certain extent.

Very easily

Already the case with myself

And i would just like to say how much I love the travelling community as they are wonderful people who bring so much to the north east of scotland

http://www.thescottishsun.co.uk/scotsol/homepage/n...

There are plenty of people on here who haven't quite got the hang of the "Troll" idea.

The House of Commons which is renowned for being out of touch with reality believe that everyone who joins a website/social network will give their real name and other correct personal details.

Trolls usually use made up names, so when Mr Busybody Red-Tape arrives to ask for their details we can only give them their registered name, if that name happens to be Mr Arse Biscuits then that's what we give them.

The Guardian article gets it pretty much dead on, oddly; even getting the correct derivation for the word.

Perversely this is probably better for the internet than the previous regime, since it establishes people like Haymarket as common carriers; they would no longer be liable for naughty things said on here.

You can already apply to the court to grant a Norwich Pharmacal Order. This is an order that forces an involved party to disclose information.

Such orders have already been used in defamation/harassment cases against sites such as Facebook and Google in this country. The information provided by Facebook, for example, was confirmation of IP addresses used by accounts and logs of activity associated with them.

A good example would be this:

http://www.bailii.org/cgi-bin/markup.cgi?doc=/ew/c...

In practice, someone defaming or harassing another on Pistonheads could already force Haymarket to disclose any data it holds which could identify the poster, assuming they were posting anonymously.

As far as I'm aware, the new bill would make it easier to get this information from internet providers, whilst in return they would be granted some level of immunity.

Internet Troll ban? It could have its advantages, It'll mean an end to George Monbiot's column...

Doesn't it apply to site owners too? With this being one of the reasons given (legitimately IMO) for not naming and shaming, I guess it could open up numerous possibilities.

Ooooh, the legal system catches on to the (maybe) early 90's.

Perhaps, in 2050, they'll address this:

.