Defamation Bill to force websites to identify "trolls"

[0a]

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.

[Biker's Nemesis]

<hides>

[eldar]

Biker's Nemesis said:

<hides>

Very easily

[Robb F]

First they came for the torrent sites...

[thinfourth2]

0a said:

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.

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...

[mattnunn]

I've been called a Troll twice today on here for disagreeing with someone, he then went on to call me abusive names, that if I hadn't been a fully grown adult male, might have upset me.

So I think thy're going to have to create a definition for troll other than someone who disagrees with someone somewhere at some time.

I'd have thought current law protects stalking, malicious and threatening behaviour - as this guy has fouind out...

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-gloucestershi...

[TheEnd]

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

[0a]

mattnunn said:

So I think thy're going to have to create a definition for troll other than someone who disagrees with someone somewhere at some time.

Quite, the media has been lazy and just used the term troll when they mean people who post libellous content. The big difference is the shift of responsibility away from website owners.

[FourWheelDrift]

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.

Edited by FourWheelDrift on Tuesday 12th June 18:31

[mattviatura]

Good job Robbie Williams isn't a then.

[davepoth]

0a said:

mattnunn said:

So I think thy're going to have to create a definition for troll other than someone who disagrees with someone somewhere at some time.

Quite, the media has been lazy and just used the term troll when they mean people who post libellous content. The big difference is the shift of responsibility away from website owners.

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.

[Jasandjules]

I guess it is both good and bad. Some people who might otherwise be most abusive may think a little harder in future. As always however, it would fall to how low the level is set at to define "troll"....

[10 Pence Short]

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.

[V88Dicky]

thinfourth2 said:

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...

I took you as being older with more hair, thinfourth2

[gamefreaks]

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

[eldar]

This does worry me, a little. The hardline trolls will still continue, but become untraceable as it becomes worth their while to hide their IP address, thus their ID.

More anonymous trolls.

[Murph7355]

10 Pence Short said:

...
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.

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.

[10 Pence Short]

Sorry, I meant 'internet providers' as a term covering those who run/own sites or provide internet service.

The problem with the current system is it's generally expensive and/or difficult for people to achieve something like a Norwich Order to try and attain the information they require. ISPs and site owners don't really do a great deal to help unless compelled to do so or under threat themselves. Can you imagine how many requests Facebook must get?

I've certainly seen threads on internet forums, such as and including this one, where an individual or organisation is arguably damaged unreasonably by threads. It's worth bearing in mind that in the case I quoted above, the individual defamed was awarded £15,000 and additionally £2000 for misuse of his private information.

[roachcoach]

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

Perhaps, in 2050, they'll address this:

.

[0a]

Most people are not behind proxies and would not know how to set one up even if they wanted to though.