Trolling - should it be a crime?
Discussion
New laws are being drafted with regards to old laws not keeping up with the times.
Trolling is soon to become illegal - but interestingly the term 'trolling' covers quite a lot of bases with regards to internet/forum activity.
It seems one of the steps the new law(s) may cover is internet anonymity, meaning that you may be committing a crime if you don't disclose your real/full identity.
It will also cover the grey area of 'being offended' by some person whom you've never met writing text on the screen - meaning that you continue to be offended the more you read it - always found that strange with connotations of you offending yourself if you choose to read on.
My thoughts are that this seems to be a new law to cater for the modern trend of those that are "professionally offended", whereby the typical person would actively look for things to be offended about in order to make complaints and pursue compensation.
Maybe I have my over cynical hat on today but it does strike me that governments are all too keen to have more control over the internet at the expense of 'traditional internet freedom' - if it could be termed as such.
Trolling is soon to become illegal - but interestingly the term 'trolling' covers quite a lot of bases with regards to internet/forum activity.
It seems one of the steps the new law(s) may cover is internet anonymity, meaning that you may be committing a crime if you don't disclose your real/full identity.
It will also cover the grey area of 'being offended' by some person whom you've never met writing text on the screen - meaning that you continue to be offended the more you read it - always found that strange with connotations of you offending yourself if you choose to read on.
My thoughts are that this seems to be a new law to cater for the modern trend of those that are "professionally offended", whereby the typical person would actively look for things to be offended about in order to make complaints and pursue compensation.
Maybe I have my over cynical hat on today but it does strike me that governments are all too keen to have more control over the internet at the expense of 'traditional internet freedom' - if it could be termed as such.
Edited by ALT F4 on Wednesday 16th March 14:02
AH33 said:
No. The only time someone should be arrested for something they have wrote is if it is a direct threat.
"Im coming round right now to kill you" is not the same as "I dont care if you live or die".
Unfortunately there are rather too many trolls who do make threats to the health , welfare or employment of people "Im coming round right now to kill you" is not the same as "I dont care if you live or die".
Equalliy there are also a few too many people who despite their powerfully build, goatee and directorships seem to be unable to distinguish between statements of opinion towards their observed behaviour and threats .
PH has its fair share of easily offended posters. Most threads I read on here have someone taking offence either as the OP, or more bizarrely on behalf of them.
Can't see a sub-forum like this existing if people are going to have to declare who they are in advance. Much of the useful info from BiB wouldn't exist if they had to "out" themselves first.
Can't see a sub-forum like this existing if people are going to have to declare who they are in advance. Much of the useful info from BiB wouldn't exist if they had to "out" themselves first.
Pickled said:
Are they going to be employing more police to investigate, or simply stretch the existing ones even further?
or making legislation which enables the police to act on current complaints that at present require undue hard work to make harassment / demanding money with menances / threats to kill stuff stick ...
going to be very difficult to get people to use their actual names. just imagine the number of John Smiths there are(or will be if this comes in.)
The other side is for a lot of people, me included my actual name and address is readily available on the web. (No I am not some grade c celebrity but I am a point of contact for a few organisations) So if I had to use my name and inadvertently put on the web we were having a lovely time by the seaside it wouldn't take some people long to put 2 and 2 together.
The other side is for a lot of people, me included my actual name and address is readily available on the web. (No I am not some grade c celebrity but I am a point of contact for a few organisations) So if I had to use my name and inadvertently put on the web we were having a lovely time by the seaside it wouldn't take some people long to put 2 and 2 together.
I would assume (and hope) that this is aimed at the kind of scum who post rape and death threats because they don't like what someone says on Twitter.
I have some sympathy over how you draft a law that allows you to prosecute people for doing scumbag stuff like that whilst not being open to abuse in the wrong hands.
I have some sympathy over how you draft a law that allows you to prosecute people for doing scumbag stuff like that whilst not being open to abuse in the wrong hands.
b
hstewie said:
hstewie said: I would assume (and hope) that this is aimed at the kind of scum who post rape and death threats because they don't like what someone says on Twitter.
I have some sympathy over how you draft a law that allows you to prosecute people for doing scumbag stuff like that whilst not being open to abuse in the wrong hands.
Offended by this post can't find anything to disagree with.I have some sympathy over how you draft a law that allows you to prosecute people for doing scumbag stuff like that whilst not being open to abuse in the wrong hands.
eldar said:
Bigends said:
We already record a number of these as malicious communications offences if the posts are abusive or insulting
Abusive or insulting, as opposed to threatening?MALICIOUS COMMUNICATIONS ACT 1988 SEC 1
1(1) Any person who sends to another person -
(a) a letter, electronic communication or article of any description which conveys -
(i) a message which is indecent or grossly offensive;
(ii) a threat; or
(iii) information which is false and known or believed to be false by the sender; or
(b) any article or electronic communication which is, in whole or in part, of an indecent or grossly offensive
nature,
is guilty of an offence if his purpose, or one of his purposes, in sending it is that it should, so far as
falling within paragraph (a) or (b) above, cause distress or anxiety to the recipient or to any other
person to whom he intends that it or its contents or nature should be communicated.
Edited by Bigends on Wednesday 16th March 22:19
eldar said:
Bigends said:
We already record a number of these as malicious communications offences if the posts are abusive or insulting
Abusive or insulting, as opposed to threatening?MALICIOUS COMMUNICATIONS ACT 1988 SEC 1
1(1) Any person who sends to another person -
(a) a letter, electronic communication or article of any description which conveys -
(i) a message which is indecent or grossly offensive;
(ii) a threat; or
(iii) information which is false and known or believed to be false by the sender; or
(b) any article or electronic communication which is, in whole or in part, of an indecent or grossly offensive
nature,
is guilty of an offence if his purpose, or one of his purposes, in sending it is that it should, so far as
falling within paragraph (a) or (b) above, cause distress or anxiety to the recipient or to any other
person to whom he intends that it or its contents or nature should be communicated.
Edited by Bigends on Wednesday 16th March 22:29
Forums | Speed, Plod & the Law | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff