Internet Trolling...should it be a criminal offence

[mizdarby]

No, I was suggesting cases where the plaintiff was unable to pay. Obviously the troll would have to be worth suing even for a contingency fee based suit. For example I am as broke as can be and have no assets, the people having a go at me, however, did have assets.

 

Marharth, I am talking about cases where it goes far beyond merely making you mad. In cases where the trolls are prepared to totally destroy a persons reputation, that can destroy the victims' livelihood too, the the troll should be prepared to face the consequence of a lawsuit that could result in it coming right back at them, and if that results in bankrupting them...well, tough! Perhaps next time they will make sure their brain is engaged before putting their muckraking little typing fingers into gear.

If someone is working tirelessly to destroy someones reputation they are not a troll in my opinion. That goes farther then just making someone upset for enjoyment. They probably have a different goal, that is likely already illegal under current laws.

When is a troll not a troll, perhaps should parliament pass a law, they should clearly define what counts as actual trolling, and clarify some of the grey areas.

I agree with the validity of the points raised by many in this debate. By making trolling a civil case, where a victim only recourse is seeking damages, that many trollers will be minors, or unable to afford to pay compensation. And it probably will be difficult to enforce, due to the difficulty of tracing the source of a troll campaign (though my initial post showed that the BBC at least could trace Nimrod Severn) and the problems of the international nature of trolling. But just because a law is difficult to enforce, does not mean it should not come into being. In the UK we have 'drink drive' laws, which frequently do not get enforced, and people still die from drink driving incidents. But does that mean we shouldn't have a law at all, of course not.

jim_uk made a decent point, that perhaps rather than seeking compensation, perhaps a troller found guilty under anti-trolling, could have their internet services cut off from their home address, for a period of time. Isn't much, but just might act a deterrent.

I will still stand by my view, that if a troller targeted vulnerable people on the internet (depressed, suicidal etc), and it could be demonstrated that the troller's posts contributed to that vulnerable individual, harming/killing themself, that the troller should serve a custodial sentence.

[JimboUK]

No, I was suggesting cases where the plaintiff was unable to pay. Obviously the troll would have to be worth suing even for a contingency fee based suit. For example I am as broke as can be and have no assets, the people having a go at me, however, did have assets.

 

Marharth, I am talking about cases where it goes far beyond merely making you mad. In cases where the trolls are prepared to totally destroy a persons reputation, that can destroy the victims' livelihood too, the the troll should be prepared to face the consequence of a lawsuit that could result in it coming right back at them, and if that results in bankrupting them...well, tough! Perhaps next time they will make sure their brain is engaged before putting their muckraking little typing fingers into gear.

 

The plaintiff is not going to be pay in an awful lot of cases, ligation of this kind is horrendously expensive.

 

if you have kids, guide them not to take trolling seriously and just ignore them like what we tell our children to not talk to strangers.

 

This^^^ If the trolls know they're not getting to you in most cases they move on. When I get abuse on Twitter I usually retweet it, rarely do they continue once you've shown you don't care what they say.

[Ghogiel]

When is a troll not a troll, perhaps should parliament pass a law, they should clearly define what counts as actual trolling, and clarify some of the grey areas.

The word troll is probably an irrelevant buzzword here, the actual legislation likely never actually uses that term and instead just continues using 'offensive or 'threatening' to actually describe what constitutes a breach of the law.

[ginnyfizz]

No, I was suggesting cases where the plaintiff was unable to pay. Obviously the troll would have to be worth suing even for a contingency fee based suit. For example I am as broke as can be and have no assets, the people having a go at me, however, did have assets.

 

Marharth, I am talking about cases where it goes far beyond merely making you mad. In cases where the trolls are prepared to totally destroy a persons reputation, that can destroy the victims' livelihood too, the the troll should be prepared to face the consequence of a lawsuit that could result in it coming right back at them, and if that results in bankrupting them...well, tough! Perhaps next time they will make sure their brain is engaged before putting their muckraking little typing fingers into gear.

 

The plaintiff is not going to be pay in an awful lot of cases, ligation of this kind is horrendously expensive.

 

 

I know, hence why I think plaintiffs may need some help to access the law, since 90% of them would not be able to afford it and it is just as possible for a relatively low paid person like a nurse to lose livelihood because of wrongful allegations.

[JimboUK]

No, I was suggesting cases where the plaintiff was unable to pay. Obviously the troll would have to be worth suing even for a contingency fee based suit. For example I am as broke as can be and have no assets, the people having a go at me, however, did have assets.

 

Marharth, I am talking about cases where it goes far beyond merely making you mad. In cases where the trolls are prepared to totally destroy a persons reputation, that can destroy the victims' livelihood too, the the troll should be prepared to face the consequence of a lawsuit that could result in it coming right back at them, and if that results in bankrupting them...well, tough! Perhaps next time they will make sure their brain is engaged before putting their muckraking little typing fingers into gear.

 

The plaintiff is not going to be pay in an awful lot of cases, ligation of this kind is horrendously expensive.

 

 

I know, hence why I think plaintiffs may need some help to access the law, since 90% of them would not be able to afford it and it is just as possible for a relatively low paid person like a nurse to lose livelihood because of wrongful allegations.

 

But where will that help come from? the taxpayer shouldn't have to foot the bill yet again and anyway the legal aid budget is stretched enough as it is and that money is better spent ensuring people get a fair trial in criminal cases. The ISPs will only pass the cost on to customers just as they will with all the other nonsense government places on them and lawyers aren't known for their generosity. I think it's being approached in the wrong way, the courts need not get involved, ISPs already have rules against using their service for malicious purposes in their T&Cs, if those T&Cs were enforced and the connection of offenders suspended then trolls would think twice about their behaviour. The added bonus is parents will take far more interest in their kids online activities if they risk losing their internet.

[Syco21]

Ginnyfizz is forgetting a very important middle step here, that's knowing exactly who it is that's targeting you. A lawyer isn't going to spend time and money trying to chase down a ghost that is likely unable to pay the settlement. If you already know who it is and that they can/will pay and there is a good chance of winning, then surely there are lawyers that will work with you on contingency already?

 

I'm not really sure what you want, Ginnyfizz. This is why I posed my question earlier, which was a question, not a quote. I wasn't misrepresenting you.

 

Vagrant0: Piracy is an entirely different matter and most legal cases amount to racketeering. Lawyers take these cases because they can file blanket lawsuits that targets thousands of people and then send them extortion letters, which rakes in a net profit. Now can we stop discussing piracy? Forum rules makes discussion of piracy passed lawsuits a veritable minefield.

[Vagrant0]

Vagrant0: Piracy is an entirely different matter and most legal cases amount to racketeering. Lawyers take these cases because they can file blanket lawsuits that targets thousands of people and then send them extortion letters, which rakes in a net profit. Now can we stop discussing piracy? Forum rules makes discussion of piracy passed lawsuits a veritable minefield.

Actually... No.

 

The more I think about it, the more I realize that piracy claims (not those who are running bootleg operations, but people who were sent fines for downloading music and similar) are really the only analog that we have towards how effective any sort of anti-trolling campaign would work.

 

Both have the same logistic problems... Location, cost, and proof of identity. Both benefit from the same advantages... Anonymity, ease of use, how common it occurs. If companies which clearly have the lawyers and money to throw at the issue can't make even a dent against stopping the behavior, what chance do individuals have at doing the same with a similar behavior? Furthermore, several of the piracy cases which have gone to court have resulted in rulings which cleared the defendant of charges based on how IP records were not admissible as evidence due to them being generally poor measures of identity. Most of the cases of piracy which were not cleared were cases where the computer was searched and proof of the download was found...

 

 

To sum it up, I've changed my opinion on the matter. This whole idea is kinda stupid since it would never work on any meaningful level. Either this bill is something solely to cover the collective asses of ISP companies due to behavior of their customers, or it is the latest attempt by UK lawmakers to try and stop piracy since the same practices (tracking and recording user behavior) which would be used in anti-trolling could be used in anti-piracy. Given how the UK seems to have recently passed several laws aimed at stopping piracy in the last few months, I'm tempted to think that it is probably both, and not really anything to do with helping the victims.

[ginnyfizz]

Ginnyfizz is forgetting a very important middle step here, that's knowing exactly who it is that's targeting you. A lawyer isn't going to spend time and money trying to chase down a ghost that is likely unable to pay the settlement. If you already know who it is and that they can/will pay and there is a good chance of winning, then surely there are lawyers that will work with you on contingency already?

 

I'm not really sure what you want, Ginnyfizz. This is why I posed my question earlier, which was a question, not a quote. I wasn't misrepresenting you.

 

Vagrant0: Piracy is an entirely different matter and most legal cases amount to racketeering. Lawyers take these cases because they can file blanket lawsuits that targets thousands of people and then send them extortion letters, which rakes in a net profit. Now can we stop discussing piracy? Forum rules makes discussion of piracy passed lawsuits a veritable minefield.

 

Yes you are misrepresenting me. I have forgotten NOTHING. Since I do have a legal qualification myself I am well aware of the fact that you actually have to be able to serve process on a person or legal entity to be able to commence action, goodness knows I've actually done it often enough. I'm not stupid - I know you can't sue when you don't know who the defendant is/where they are :facepalm: However it isn't unknown for trolls/harassers to be so cocky that they don't trouble to hide who they are - and I should know.

 

You seem to have missed the bit where I said that it has only been legal in relatively recent years for lawyers to be actually permitted to take cases on contingencies in the UK, and many are far too keen on their up front fees to do it now.

 

@ jim_uk, I do not recall actually saying that we should bloat the Legal Aid budget any more than it already is? The word I used was facilitate access. There's all manner of ways of doing that. Including enforcing the existing laws where the trolling crosses into the threatening/hate crime category. What would be useful is some kind of easily accessible register of lawyers who would be willing to take cases on a contingency basis. Might be a very minor cost to compile and print and put in Citizens Advice Bureaux, libraries etc.

[JimboUK]

Ginnyfizz is forgetting a very important middle step here, that's knowing exactly who it is that's targeting you. A lawyer isn't going to spend time and money trying to chase down a ghost that is likely unable to pay the settlement. If you already know who it is and that they can/will pay and there is a good chance of winning, then surely there are lawyers that will work with you on contingency already?

 

I'm not really sure what you want, Ginnyfizz. This is why I posed my question earlier, which was a question, not a quote. I wasn't misrepresenting you.

 

Vagrant0: Piracy is an entirely different matter and most legal cases amount to racketeering. Lawyers take these cases because they can file blanket lawsuits that targets thousands of people and then send them extortion letters, which rakes in a net profit. Now can we stop discussing piracy? Forum rules makes discussion of piracy passed lawsuits a veritable minefield.

 

Yes you are misrepresenting me. I have forgotten NOTHING. Since I do have a legal qualification myself I am well aware of the fact that you actually have to be able to serve process on a person or legal entity to be able to commence action, goodness knows I've actually done it often enough. I'm not stupid - I know you can't sue when you don't know who the defendant is/where they are :facepalm: However it isn't unknown for trolls/harassers to be so cocky that they don't trouble to hide who they are - and I should know.

 

You seem to have missed the bit where I said that it has only been legal in relatively recent years for lawyers to be actually permitted to take cases on contingencies in the UK, and many are far too keen on their up front fees to do it now.

 

@ jim_uk, I do not recall actually saying that we should bloat the Legal Aid budget any more than it already is? The word I used was facilitate access. There's all manner of ways of doing that. Including enforcing the existing laws where the trolling crosses into the threatening/hate crime category. What would be useful is some kind of easily accessible register of lawyers who would be willing to take cases on a contingency basis. Might be a very minor cost to compile and print and put in Citizens Advice Bureaux, libraries etc.

 

If you're not going to bloat the legal aid budget then who is going to pay the lawyers? a list of lawyers willing to risk working for nothing is going to a be a very short one. Civil action is really a non starter, the majority of trolls will be children, teenagers or adults of low intelligence, none of them are groups likely to have much money. I agree on enforcing current laws but those laws need to be updated so only serious matters are looked in to, the law as it is is ridiculous, people can go running to the police for silly things just because they feel offended. Even the police are sick of it. This just about sums up the problem with the law as it is, this woman should have been arrested for wasting police time, telling tales because someone says you smell is playground stuff, 13 years of Labour nannying seems to have infantilized a large percentage of the population, any new law is going to have to filter out those who get offended by everything and those that go around looking for things to be offended by.

[Syco21]

Alright, there seems to be some confusion so here, let me just ask this.

 

Ginny, are you in favor of new laws regarding this issue?