Internet Trolling...should it be a criminal offence

[ginnyfizz]

Not as far as I am concerned, but seeing that he has been, it is more likely to result in him receiving treatment than a prosecution. The CPS are never going to take that to court. But he will get the mental health order that might have him made to take his meds.

[HeyYou]

Some flavor of legal recourse for trolls that actually cause more than a bit of ire at their insensitivity sure wouldn't hurt.... whether or not something that is workable on a media platform that spans multiple jurisdictions/countries/etc.... is going to be the fun part. Putting a law into place in the UK, isn't going to help if the perps are in the US, or Canda, or Mexico, or China.... etc. While the threat may have some effect, I don't expect it to really hold much water.

 

In my previous post, I was more referring to the particular teen that got busted for making a comment in poor taste... and getting arrested for it. As I see it, the solution for HIM is actually quite simple, deny him access to the internet. End of problem.

[Ghogiel]

Why is the internet so special? What happens when you say "you let your father down" to some ones face IRL?

 

I know if they hit you, while understandable, is not condonable behaviour and is certainly illegal. I feel the wording in law is going to be too vague and broadly encompass expression it shouldn't, per as usual, it always is with this sort of thing, and that is what makes it dangerous. It wouldn't be used to stop dangerous internet trolling as much as it would be for other forms of censorship.

 

Think about this Ginny> posting slurs on politicians names, Remember the *censored* to Blair t-shirts? essentially Anything you post such as like "Bliar" could very well have you prosecuted.

It violates a fundamental form of expression, and a good one> Can't tell me 'f*** you A hole' can't be the most apt and succinct verbal or written communication of a valid thought.

Edited August 3, 2012 by Ghogiel

[Syco21]

Not as far as I am concerned, but seeing that he has been, it is more likely to result in him receiving treatment than a prosecution. The CPS are never going to take that to court. But he will get the mental health order that might have him made to take his meds.

He never should have been arrested, he shouldn't be forced to do anything. His comment, while insensitive, should not be criminalized.

 

 

As for the topic at had. Things that should be illegal, already are illegal. There's no need for new laws, all they will achieve is the restriction of our human rights.

[Lutine]

Not as far as I am concerned, but seeing that he has been, it is more likely to result in him receiving treatment than a prosecution. The CPS are never going to take that to court. But he will get the mental health order that might have him made to take his meds.

He never should have been arrested, he shouldn't be forced to do anything. His comment, while insensitive, should not be criminalized.

 

 

As for the topic at had. Things that should be illegal, already are illegal. There's no need for new laws, all they will achieve is the restriction of our human rights.

 

I recall he did much more that say insulting comments. He also made verbal threats against that athlete.

[mizdarby]

Wow a bunch of really good answers.

I will concur with the general consensus, that enforcing any form of anti-trolling law across international borders, would be pretty difficult, and I will soften my stance to this degree, that insensitive trolling would be best dealt with using the old mantra 'Don't feed the troll'.

 

But in the case of racial hate speech/the promotion of violence/other serious illegal activities, that would be a crime in many parts of the world, that such instances should result in the same sort of sanctions, as if the same hate speech/promtion of violence/other serious illegal activity was used in a face to face situation. I would like to think, that two nations (say UK and USA), could use their own law agencies, to pass information about that sort of trolling, to be dealt with ,as the native nation of the troll feel they should. Obviously this would only apply, to two nations, where the troll posts, breaks the law of both nations.

 

And in the extreme cases, where trolling is a clear factor, in forcing vulnerable persons over the edge, leading up to the victim taking their own life, the trolling should be treated as culpable manslaughter, and should end up with the same sort of custodial sentence as any other manslaughter act.

[ginnyfizz]

That is apparently so Lutine, although I still say that an arrest as such is not the answer, though sectioning the sad individual under the Mental Health Act may well be.

 

Why is the internet so special? What happens when you say "you let your father down" to some ones face IRL?

 

I know if they hit you, while understandable, is not condonable behaviour and is certainly illegal. I feel the wording in law is going to be too vague and broadly encompass expression it shouldn't, per as usual, it always is with this sort of thing, and that is what makes it dangerous. It wouldn't be used to stop dangerous internet trolling as much as it would be for other forms of censorship.

 

Think about this Ginny> posting slurs on politicians names, Remember the *censored* to Blair t-shirts? essentially Anything you post such as like "Bliar" could very well have you prosecuted.

It violates a fundamental form of expression, and a good one> Can't tell me 'f*** you A hole' can't be the most apt and succinct verbal or written communication of a valid thought.

 

Why address this to me, Ghogiel? Although granted, as a pro hunting campaigner I did have one of those T shirts (believe I still have it complete with the blood from when my cranium made contact with a police baton). My argument is NOT about saying that people should be prosecuted for being merely rude and offensive. If you read my posts, you will note that I have said that the existing law already covers the most serious cases of trolling, and that the law should be used only in those cases. That is to say,

 

- where your exercise of your free speech infringes on the ability of another to exercise their free speech (as in what happened to me);

- where the trolling affects the ability of the victim to practice in their chosen job or profession (a troll suggesting someone is a paedophile could potentially get the person trolled suspended from almost any job where you have any contact with the public, pending investigation);

- where the trolling causes the person trolled to suffer significant loss, whether of their job or because they are forced to move house etc ;

- where the trolling amounts to a criminal offence eg blackmail or assault (contrary to popular belief, you do not have to lay a finger on someone for it to be an assault, putting someone in genuine fear of violence or death is enough)

 

Free speech may be king, but the way in which you choose to exercise it may have consequences, and should do when you cross the line from rudery to damaging as described above.

 

Incidentally on the subject of politicians and Saint Anthony Blair (sarcasm totally intended) in particular. Putting my wig back on, I can tell you that in Britain there is a defence to an action for defamation, in fact there are two that would cover that particular eventuality;-

 

- Fair comment on a matter of public interest would certainly cover questioning the veracity of a former Prime Minister

- That the comments were in fact true

 

Given those possible defences and the prospects of being kebabbed by a skilled defence lawyer, it is almost unknown for politicians to sue for libel when accused of lying. Seeing that they get accused of it in the press on a daily basis, the courts would be clogged for ever and a day with mardy politicos. (Also is a waste of time suing someone who has no money).

[Syco21]

Racism, with a few exceptions, ain't illegal in the US and I'd like to keep it that way.

[DaedalusMachina]

Somebody mentioned a pediatrician run out of their home because some idiot didn't know the difference between pediatrician and pedophile.

 

That's already a crime, it's called libel.

 

Other than that, no law concerning "Trolls" under any definition would be enforceable, anywhere, ever. Why? Somebody already mentioned that the trolls probably aren't even in the same country as the offense. It would require a global enforcement, and I have strong difficulty believing that such a planet-controlling enforcement agency would be concerned with the acts of one individual against another through something as simple as libel.

 

All that is easily avoidable with one very simple step: Don't put your identity on the internet. If you come under attack, you snap your fingers, and you disappear, and you reappear with a completely new identity, as if WitSec had done it for you. Social media is not for everybody, it's for safe people. This is just responsible internet using, and they should teach it in schools.

 

Now that I think of it, they might. They didn't when I was a kid, but when I was a kid, nobody had cellphones in grade school.

[Vagrant0]

If someone is harassing you online it is pretty easy to completely block them if needed.

Actually... No it isn't.

 

In an extreme situation, this means completely breaking all ties to whatever online groups you might be part of, cancelling e-mails, or no longer being able to do anything online. It's incredibly easy to say "just stop using the internet", but is becoming much harder to actually do. This whole thing becomes even more complicated if you have anything that links your username to an actual name since a determined person can decide to harass you in real life, spread lies to your friends, or cause other sorts of damage.

 

Aside from that, suggesting that someone completely abandon something they enjoy just because of harassment only serves to empower the one doing the harassment. A person should not be forced to leave a community just because some jackass has a personal problem. We've seen this very thing dozens of times in this community just because the troll has nothing to lose and can continue on insulting, defaming that persons work, or whatever while the victim has to just sit there and take it while some feeble attempt is made to limit the harassment.

 

This is hardly how it happens with every case, but there are certainly those who go out of their way to try and make another person's life hell, just for the sake of entertainment and because there is no risk.

 

 

That said, I don't think this law will accomplish much on its own, not even after other parts of the EU and Western Hemisphere pass similar laws. But I think it might help some run a sanity check before sending their messages, or do something about the more severe cases of internet harassment.

 

Regarding freedom of speech; You are still able to say what you want and what you believe in, but you won't be able to be free of the consequences of that speech (just like real life). Freedom of Speech does not give you right to verbally abuse others or undermine their well being. Freedom of Speech is there as a right to allow open and civil discourse about those aspects which you are personally concerned with, without being tried for treason. This is why you are allowed to criticize the government without having you and everyone you know tossed into prison. This is why Fox News and similar groups haven't yet been shut down, even when it is abundantly clear who is saying what.