Internet Trolling...should it be a criminal offence

[dazzerfong]

@ Syco21:

 

Good luck trying to get a straight answer from her: though, judging from her posts so far, I'll say yes.

I am sorry but what? First don't answer for other people and second...well really is that comment needed at all? Lets try to keep it on the straight and narrow please and keep personal commentary about other posters out of it.~Lisnpuppy

 

Problem is, more often than not, trolling happens as a reciprocation of a vice (be it arrogance, etc). That saying, I support this law for the more 'extreme' cases, such as the aforementioned examples of persuading someone to suicide, etc. But my main qualm with the law is the potential 'pettyness' of some cases, ie. the occasionally insult or two that are really just minor. People are going to abuse it, we're going to pursue civil cases after the perp to grab a bit of loot, you see where I'm going here.

 

But there are problems. First of all is the privacy agreement between the ISP and the user. That's going to be messy. Secondly, I use a proxy, BOOM. Can't track him any more without some extreme hardware.

 

As for your article with the elderly, exactly. Cops are becoming more like glorified councilors than enforcers because of petty cases like these. And unlike life, you can avoid the internet. Getting insulted over the Internet makes a few sniffles, OK. Getting insulted in real life repeatedly, short of relocating to another location, is unavoidable: that's fine to get someone arrested over. Making a law that wastes a lot of time and money because you couldn't just back off without much problem is, I'm afraid, is (in my opinion) testament to an overall problem in society these days. Stand up, or back down. Don't stand still.

 

I have to take into account my fatalistic and 'realistic' views: I could care less if someone insulted me over the internet, since I've never even seen him. Sure, I might take offense, but I could hardly take it up to the courts and sue him. Suing someone over something this (in my opinion) trivial is either (again, in my opinion) an attempt to reciprocate an attack, or you just have too much time on your hands. But again, this is the cynical side of me popping up, so don't take it personally if it seems I offended you. I'm just 'different.'

 

EDIT: Found this topic. If you're into this topic, you should read it. Some people just have too much time on their hands.

Edited August 8, 2012 by Lisnpuppy

[ginnyfizz]

Thanks Lisnpuppy.

 

I have made myself quite clear, should you, Syco21 and you, dazzerfong, have actually bothered to read my posts. I have stated quite clearly that I am not in favour of new laws but of enforcement of existing laws where that is possible.

 

@jim_uk - I have also been quite clear in my posts that the troll has to be worth suing, which rules out the kiddies, and traceable, for legal action to commence. I DO know quite a lot about how the law works, believe it or not.

I am not talking about lawyers working for nothing, I am talking about them taking cases on a contingency fee basis, which means they get paid out of the damages, and for defamation, these damages can be substantial. The only lawyers that do this regularly in the UK at present are the ambulance chasing personal injury lawyers. Perhaps they could recruit some defamation specialists.

[mizdarby]

Thanks Lisnpuppy.

 

I have made myself quite clear, should you, Syco21 and you, dazzerfong, have actually bothered to read my posts. I have stated quite clearly that I am not in favour of new laws but of enforcement of existing laws where that is possible.

 

@jim_uk - I have also been quite clear in my posts that the troll has to be worth suing, which rules out the kiddies, and traceable, for legal action to commence. I DO know quite a lot about how the law works, believe it or not.

I am not talking about lawyers working for nothing, I am talking about them taking cases on a contingency fee basis, which means they get paid out of the damages, and for defamation, these damages can be substantial. The only lawyers that do this regularly in the UK at present are the ambulance chasing personal injury lawyers. Perhaps they could recruit some defamation specialists.

I personally think you have contributed well considered posts to this debate, and as far as I am concerned have been consistent in your stance, so can not imagine why anybody reading this debate, would be confused about your viewpoint.

I agree should parliament pass any new anti-trolling policies, that there would be plenty of law firms, who would seek to take up cases, on a no win no fee basis, and though there would be many cases that could not result in damages, due to inability to pay, there will be enough cases that would end up with substantial damages won, to earn law firms plenty of income.

Just in case anybody is confused by my own stance, I am in favour of tightening up the current defamation laws, to enable people who have suffered trolling campaigns, the chance to fight back. I would like the cps (criminal prosecution service) to review each alleged trolling incident, to see if it is serious enough to warrant revealing the id's of trollers, and only if the cps deem it serious enough, should any civil action be allowed. And I would like extreme cases (leading to suicide etc) to be a criminal act, that bears a custodial sentence.

[JimboUK]

Thanks Lisnpuppy.

 

I have made myself quite clear, should you, Syco21 and you, dazzerfong, have actually bothered to read my posts. I have stated quite clearly that I am not in favour of new laws but of enforcement of existing laws where that is possible.

 

@jim_uk - I have also been quite clear in my posts that the troll has to be worth suing, which rules out the kiddies, and traceable, for legal action to commence. I DO know quite a lot about how the law works, believe it or not.

I am not talking about lawyers working for nothing, I am talking about them taking cases on a contingency fee basis, which means they get paid out of the damages, and for defamation, these damages can be substantial. The only lawyers that do this regularly in the UK at present are the ambulance chasing personal injury lawyers. Perhaps they could recruit some defamation specialists.

 

What damages? the majority of trolls don't have the ability to pay damages. These ambulance chasers go after easy targets, those who pay because it's cheaper, the public sector who don't care about money and those who will lumber their insurance with paying the claim, how many are going to take on an action where the target either has nothing of value or does and will fight back? What use is a law that only protects the well off from other people who are well off? This is MPs wanting to be seen doing something, for them it doesn't matter that their something is useless to most of us. There is a danger here that it will be used to stifle free speech, some may not speak their mind for fear of upsetting someone and getting sued, it may not be the case that that would happen but some may not want to chance it. Have a look at the left in the UK, their favourite debating tactic is taking offence at anything they disagree with so they can brand their opponent racist, sexist or whatever and thus shut down the discussion. These people will have a field day with this.

 

We already have laws to deal with abuse, those laws need to be adjusted to get rid of the frivolous claims made by those delicate souls who burst into tears when someone looks at them wrongly, then the law can concentrate on the serious cases which are criminal in nature not civil.

[dazzerfong]

Ginny, I apologise for my earlier presumption. I suppose I should read it more clearly next time.

Though, several things:

 

Are they actually criminalising 'trolling', or just allowing people to sue it over in civil courts?

If it's criminal, would it be in lieu of defamation, or something greater?

If it's civil, who and what determines the damages? Unlike public defamation, this is a bit harder to track, in my opinion.

 

@ Lisnpuppy:

 

You came across me wrong: I didn't answer for him, I'm suggesting for him, from past posts. Like I said:

 

Good luck trying to get a straight answer from her: though, judging from her posts so far, I'll say yes.

 

If that's not allowed, I'll keep that in mind in the future. This is a forum after all, is it not?

Edited August 9, 2012 by dazzerfong

[Lisnpuppy]

@Dazzerfong If I "came across you wrong" then I will agree to a misunderstanding on that part of your comment. However the entire comment was not needed..period.

 

@ Everyone--Now this topic has stayed pretty good up to this point..( woop) but lets keep it that way. Stay on topic, keep your questions to others on their post and not on personal aspects of them (you all do know there is no reason that you have to ask and address every little slight or perceived grievance? Good)....I really do not know how many of you enjoy the debates section but trust me when I say it is breathing its last. If you all wish it to stay about then toe the line. This is not directed at anyone specific but is a "gentle" reminder to you all. I include it in this same response only to expedite my posting. Now if you will excuse me I have some local Riftenites to feed upon.~Lisnpuppy

[Marxist ßastard]

So I haven't really been following this thread, but I do agree that there should be much harsher punishments for Internet trolls. To offend someone for your own amusement is borderline sociopathy and should be treated as such.

[HeyYou]

So I haven't really been following this thread, but I do agree that there should be much harsher punishments for Internet trolls. To offend someone for your own amusement is borderline sociopathy and should be treated as such.

 

The major concern here is enforceability. I would agree with the sentiment that his is mostly politicians doing something simply to give the appearance that they ARE doing something. You cannot legislate good behavior, and certainly not against folks that aren't even within the laws jurisdiction.

 

Another thought may be, are the politicians setting this up, so that they can take some action against those that disagree with their views? After all, if posting an 'in poor taste' comment is cause for arrest...... wouldn't posting something toward/about some politician be 'offensive' to them??? How far do they want to take this?

[ginnyfizz]

Nevermind. I have made some sensible and serious posts, and speak from very bitter experience, but I can see that there is a tendency on the part of people not to believe just how bad trolling can get. Going to take this to PM.

[Beriallord]

I don't like England's policy and infringement on freedom of speech. And that means I'd never support their government, or their country financially in any way, nor have any desire to ever visit there as a tourist. I pretty much feel that way about most of Europe, and not to just single out England.

 

Trolls are going to be trolls, and its better to just ignore them, or if they are on forums, just ban them. They do a very good job at banning trolls here.

 

Some might say that people say things on the internet that they wouldn't say in person, and sometimes that may be the case, but I also get the impression that people act like they have incredibly thin skin on the internet, and are perceived to be troll bait by trolls. The thing about trolls if they know they can get to you, then they will. If they think you really don't give a damn, then they will leave you alone.

 

What is wrong with just blocking/ignoring/banning the trolls, why get the law involved? Even racist groups here in the USA have the right to speak their mind in public. I don't agree with them but I support their right to free speech, and that they are free to make themselves look like the ignorant bigots they are.

Edited August 10, 2012 by Beriallord