Want to read Slashdot from your mobile device? Point it at m.slashdot.org and keep reading!

 



Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
×
United Kingdom Censorship The Internet Your Rights Online

In UK, Internet Trolls Could Face Two Years In Jail 489

An anonymous reader writes with this news from The Guardian about a proposed change in UK law that would greatly increase the penalties for online incivility: Internet trolls who spread "venom" on social media could be jailed for up to two years, the justice secretary Chris Grayling has said as he announced plans to quadruple the maximum prison sentence. Grayling, who spoke of a "baying cybermob", said the changes will allow magistrates to pass on the most serious cases to crown courts. The changes, which will be introduced as amendments to the criminal justice and courts bill, will mean the maximum custodial sentence of six months will be increased to 24 months. Grayling told the Mail on Sunday: "These internet trolls are cowards who are poisoning our national life. No one would permit such venom in person, so there should be no place for it on social media. That is why we are determined to quadruple the six-month sentence.
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

In UK, Internet Trolls Could Face Two Years In Jail

Comments Filter:
  • by msobkow ( 48369 ) on Sunday October 19, 2014 @06:22PM (#48182559) Homepage Journal

    As much as I despise trolls, I despise heavy-handed government censorship even more.

    • by gweihir ( 88907 ) on Sunday October 19, 2014 @06:41PM (#48182677)

      What, you will not allow a budding totalitarian regime to do what it does best, namely terrorize its population? You must be a troll! Off to jail with you!

    • by ewibble ( 1655195 ) on Sunday October 19, 2014 @06:43PM (#48182683)

      Agreed, In real life you don't go to jail for 2 year for being rude what makes the internet so special.

      • by dryeo ( 100693 ) on Sunday October 19, 2014 @08:45PM (#48183369)

        When the first amendment was introduced, duels were pretty well legal and accepted as a response to an insult and even now "fighting words" are considered to be a defence against assault charges and possibly murder in some jurisdictions.

        • by digsbo ( 1292334 )
          There are mutual consent laws for this in some states in the USA today. I remember that weird dude Phoenix Jones engaged with a drunk in front of a police officer, and since they both consented, it was not a crime for Jones to drop the guy. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v... [youtube.com]
    • It's not censorship since they have to actually do their trolling first.

    • As the drug wars wind down all over the world, they have to have something to fill the prisons with. And really, this one will be easier to fake than the throw down baggie that the police had...because the trouble with the throw-down baggie was that you couldn't trust the police with it... I'm just saying.

    • The purpose of the law is not to silence trolls. Trolls will not be the ones going to jail.

  • by alvinrod ( 889928 ) on Sunday October 19, 2014 @06:23PM (#48182567)
    Who gets to decide what qualifies as trolling?

    I have a feeling that there are some people who would take a polite "You're wrong and I disagree with you for the following reasons . . ." as trolling. Sure the "I hope you die in a car fire" and "I'm going to kill your animals" are low-hanging fruit, but there's a line there somewhere and it's not always easy to find. I'm not very comfortable with laws that require some form of human interpretation as guilt comes down entirely to the human doing the interpreting and at that point you have to hope they don't have an ax to grind or some other reason for disliking you.
    • by c ( 8461 )

      I have a feeling that there are some people who would take a polite "You're wrong and I disagree with you for the following reasons . . ." as trolling.

      I was going to say that "you're a coward who is poisoning our national life" is a fine example, but that's good too.

    • by gronofer ( 838299 ) on Sunday October 19, 2014 @06:55PM (#48182743)

      However the Communcations Act of 2003 is interpreted, is seems. See Wikipedia [wikipedia.org]:

      Malicious communications

      Section 127 of the act makes it an offence to send a message that is grossly offensive or of an indecent, obscene or menacing character over a public electronic communications network.[8] The section replaced section 43 of the Telecommunications Act 1984 and is drafted as widely as its predecessor.[9] The section has controversially been widely used to prosecute users of social media in cases such as the Twitter Joke Trial and Facebook comments concerning the murder of April Jones.[10]

      On 19 December 2012, to strike a balance between freedom of speech and criminality, the Director of Public Prosecutions issued interim guidelines, clarifying when social messaging is eligible for criminal prosecution under UK law. Only communications that are credible threats of violence, harassment, or stalking (such as aggressive Internet trolling) which specifically targets an individual or individuals, or breaches a court order designed to protect someone (such as those protecting the identity of a victim of a sexual offence) will be prosecuted. Communications that express an "unpopular or unfashionable opinion about serious or trivial matters, or banter or humor, even if distasteful to some and painful to those subjected to it" will not. Communications that are merely "grossly offensive, indecent, obscene or false" will be prosecuted only when it can be shown to be necessary and proportionate. People who pass on malicious messages, such as by retweeting, can also be prosecuted when the original message is subject to prosecution. Individuals who post messages as part of a separate crime, such as a plan to import drugs, would face prosecution for that offence, as is currently the case.[11][12][13]

      Revisions to the interim guidelines were issued on 20 June 2013 following a public consultation.[14] The revisions specified that prosecutors should consider:

      whether messages were aggravated by references to race, religion or other minorities, and whether they breached existing rules to counter harassment or stalking; and
      the age and maturity of any wrongdoer should be taken into account and given great weight.

      The revisions also clarified that criminal prosecutions were "unlikely":

      when the author of the message had "expressed genuine remorse";
      when "swift and effective action ... to remove the communication" was taken; or
      when messages were not intended for a wide audience.

      • Here is an example of what qualifies under this act:

        "Crap! Robin Hood airport is closed. You've got a week and a bit to get your shit together, otherwise I'm blowing the airport sky high!!"

    • by westlake ( 615356 ) on Sunday October 19, 2014 @07:33PM (#48182967)

      I have a feeling that there are some people who would take a polite "You're wrong and I disagree with you for the following reasons . . ." as trolling.

      This isn't about trolling.

      This is about abusive, manipulative, disruptive and often threatening behavior that would not be tolerated off-line in the name of free speech --- because it is the enemy of free speech.

      Free speech cannot survive in an atmosphere of fear.

      Free speech cannot survive when speakers are shouted down, bullied and hounded off stage.

      Free speech cannot survive the mob.

      • This is about abusive, manipulative, disruptive and often threatening behavior that would not be tolerated off-line in the name of free speech

        All of which is subjective. And not tolerated by who? Speak for yourself.

        Free speech cannot survive in an atmosphere of fear.

        Free speech cannot survive when speakers are shouted down, bullied and hounded off stage.

        Free speech cannot survive the mob.

        Unless it escalates to physical violence, your free speech rights haven't been infringed upon, unlike what the government is trying to do here.

      • by stephanruby ( 542433 ) on Sunday October 19, 2014 @11:04PM (#48183927)

        This isn't about trolling.

        This is about abusive, manipulative, disruptive and often threatening behavior that would not be tolerated off-line in the name of free speech --- because it is the enemy of free speech.

        Free speech cannot survive in an atmosphere of fear.

        Free speech cannot survive when speakers are shouted down, bullied and hounded off stage.

        Free speech cannot survive the mob.

        No, this law is mostly about drinking and tweeting, and tweeting racist things as a result. [bbc.com]

        In the UK, the maximum penalty for someone drinking and driving, when a life isn't actually lost as a result, is up 6 months in jail. [www.gov.uk] However, if you happen to be drinking and tweeting (and not driving), then that maximum penalty is multiplied by four.

        Free speech cannot survive when speakers are shouted down, bullied and hounded off stage.

        Free speech cannot survive the mob.

        May be, but not in the tweeting cases prosecuted by the Crown. In each case, the mob sided with the target of the tweets, not the offender. And of course, we're not talking about online school bullying with this particular law. If this law was aimed at stopping school bullying, there would be a provision for underaged offenders, which there isn't. And it would be applied to those school cases, which as of now it hasn't.

        ...that would not be tolerated off-line in the name of free speech

        That's a nice idea, but you haven't spend any time around drunk people. When a drunk person gets belligerent, you throw them out of the premises, or if you're not the owner of the premises, you walk away from them. Throwing them in jail is the last possible resort, only to be used, when that person is a danger to others, or a danger to himself (like when he or she is hitting other people, or trying to drive a car).

        Throwing trolls in jail isn't going to solve the problem of trolls. For one thing, there will still be people trolling from outside the UK (they will do so just because they can, as a taunt against the British authorities). And for a second thing, people aren't going to stop drinking and tweeting, even inside the UK, so the angry judges and politicians are likely to be even more frustrated with the results and come up with even more draconian measures.

    • Who gets to decide what qualifies as trolling?

      A judge in a court of law? That's their job.

      Presumably if you feel particularly aggrieved by something you've had directed to you online, you can complain to the police and press charges. When it comes to court, the evidence is presented, the defence puts its case and the judge decides.
    • I was recently called a troll for claiming that a call for censorship was, in fact, a call for censorship. Now, as one who has perhaps occasionally indulged in a bit of trolling (search Slashdot for my insightful and informative mods, of course), I know trolling, and that ain't it.

    • by jbolden ( 176878 )

      I'm not very comfortable with laws that require some form of human interpretation as guilt comes down entirely to the human doing the interpreting and at that point you have to hope they don't have an ax to grind or some other reason for disliking you.

      Virtually all law in the UK or USA requires the jury to make determinations of guilt based on their interpretations of actions. You are objecting to crucial concepts in our system. Most crucially criminal intent being required not just a findings that ac

    • Enforcement of nearly every single law in the world requires some sort of subjective judgment. That's why we have human judges and juries to help decide these things - at least matters of any real significance, like criminal matters. What's the difference between first degree murder, second degree murder, or manslaughter? All very subjective factors. This is no different.

      There are legitimate arguments to be made against this sort of law, but I think most people wouldn't find it hard to recognize legitim

    • by rmstar ( 114746 )

      Who gets to decide what qualifies as trolling?

      I have a feeling that there are some people who would take a polite "You're wrong and I disagree with you for the following reasons . . ." as trolling. Sure the "I hope you die in a car fire" and "I'm going to kill your animals" are low-hanging fruit, but there's a line there somewhere and it's not always easy to find.

      This being Britain, I'm sure it will be an awful mess of a law dripping cruelty and class discrimination like ASBOs and other recent British laws

  • by Mr_Wisenheimer ( 3534031 ) on Sunday October 19, 2014 @06:23PM (#48182569)

    . . . especially the ones behind using the internet to interfere with people's real lives, but I do not believe that mere trolling is criminal.

    The EU, especially the UK's constant rolling back of the freedom of expression is downright concerning. If people go to prison for expressing an unpopular opinion I disagree with, how long before people go to prison for expressing an unpopular opinion I agree with?

    Despite it's flaws, the near absolute interpretation of the constitutional right to the freedom of speech by the US Supreme Court is a godsend and makes me proud to be an American.

    • by Anonymous Coward

      It has nothing to do with expressing opinions or being rude, they are not covered under this law no matter how much offence a person takes. A person can only be prosecuted under this law if they are intentionally targeting a specific person in order to harass/stalk them.

      I'm okay with that. The wording is clear enough that misuse of this law will be thrown out easily.

    • Re: (Score:3, Interesting)

      by TubeSteak ( 669689 )

      Despite it's flaws, the near absolute interpretation of the constitutional right to the freedom of speech by the US Supreme Court is a godsend and makes me proud to be an American.

      I can't help but think that anyone who believes this is anything less that wildly ignorant about the Constitution and Supreme Court jurisprudence.

      Here are some broad exceptions to the constitutional right to the freedom of speech:
      1. Libel, slander, and various forms of misleading statements
      2. Inciting others to violence
      3. Fighting words
      4. Disturbing the peace (offensive words can be considered a breach of the peace)
      5. Intentional infliction of emotional distress
      6. Copyrights & trademarks
      7. Obscenity
      8. C

      • Exactly. Anyone who thinks the US is some bastion of freedom is speech is making shit up or just ignorant. The reality is that the US needs to go through some drastic changes as well, as we can't claim to be a truly free country if we don't respect something as basic as the right to free speech (which we don't).

        Also, sometimes free speech zones are used.

      • by Mr_Wisenheimer ( 3534031 ) on Sunday October 19, 2014 @08:24PM (#48183265)

        Your response demonstrates that you failed to read and understand my points. There will always be limits to freedom of speech, but those limits are much more restrained in the US than the UK, just to go down the list:

        1) Libel in the US is a civil matter (not criminal) and requires meeting very strict standards of proof, including proving both that the defendant knowingly made a false statement for the express purpose of defaming the plaintiff (and not as a matter of comedic, satirical, or other protected purpose) and that the plaintiff actually suffered real damages as a result. Libel cases in the US are very difficult to win.. By contrast, the British libel laws are so unfavorable to the defendant's right of free speech that many US States such as California have passed laws to protect their residents from action in British courts.

        2) Inciting others to violence is only illegal if there is an imminent threat of lawless action, such as a mob gathered around someone's house who you incite to storm inside. By contrast, British law allows someone to be imprisoned simply for making disrespectful statements about someone or some group that might, at some hypothetical point in the future, incite others to commit violence against.

        3) The fighting words doctrine has largely been overturned and, in any case, is not a criminal act in itself, merely recognized as a mitigating defense to a claim of assault or battery.

        4) Disturbing the peace is not a charge that can be used as a workaround to target someone's freedom of expression. The courts have ruled on this time and again.

        5) Emotional distress is damage in a civil case. It has nothing to do with freedom of speech.

        I'm not going to even bother than the rest, because you clearly missed the point. No right is absolute, but the US Supreme Court guards the freedom of expression in the US much more fiercely than European Courts do.

        • civil case

          Civil cases still involve the government enforcing the decision. They might not be as severe, but they're still an infringement upon free speech rights.

          I'm not going to even bother than the rest, because you clearly missed the point. No right is absolute, but the US Supreme Court guards the freedom of expression in the US much more fiercely than European Courts do.

          X being better than Y does not mean that X is good. Really, the US courts are quite terrible at this.

    • by hey! ( 33014 )

      Well, every generalization has its corner cases that require careful thought. So while I agree that trolling per se shouldn't be outlawed, there may be certain uses of trolling that should be criminalized.

      Take the libelous component of cyberstalking. At the very least this could be an aggravating factor in impersonation. Also, the law already recognizes libel as wrong, but it requires the harmed person take civil action. The Internet exposes more people than ever to reputation harm, but not all those pe

  • .... and Anita Sarkeesian is a ...."

    Alright! We've got you surrounded! Put down the mouse and come out with your hands up!

    • by jbolden ( 176878 )

      and Anita Sarkeesian

      A very good presenter, insightful and fun to watch. A bit self contradictory in her theories but she's still working through the details of her theories, I suspect. Essentially a great candidate for a pundit for G4TV.

  • by davydagger ( 2566757 ) on Sunday October 19, 2014 @06:25PM (#48182581)
    I can trollolol people in jolly good England all day long, but if they troll us back, we can report them?

    bloody hell.
  • Define trolling (Score:4, Informative)

    by jones_supa ( 887896 ) on Sunday October 19, 2014 @06:26PM (#48182585)
    I hope they have defined properly what they mean with "trolling". By definition, trolling means writing inflammatory comments that excite people to write indignant responses. Thus, for example, bullying or threats do not technically count as trolling.
    • Re:Define trolling (Score:5, Informative)

      by pr0nbot ( 313417 ) on Sunday October 19, 2014 @06:53PM (#48182731)

      Roughly speaking, as I understand it, if it would be criminal to say something to a person's face, it will be criminal to say it to them online. For example, a death threat.

    • by Ichijo ( 607641 )

      By definition, trolling means writing inflammatory comments that excite people to write indignant responses.

      That used to be called "heresy," and it also came with consequences. What's old is new again.

    • Re: (Score:3, Interesting)

      by Anonymous Coward

      Journalists do what journalists do - oversimplify and sacrifice meaning. Politicians making speeches do the same.

      Here's what the actual judicial guidelines have to say about it:

      Only communications that are credible threats of violence, harassment, or stalking (such as aggressive Internet trolling) which specifically targets an individual or individuals, or breaches a court order designed to protect someone (such as those protecting the identity of a victim of a sexual offence) will be prosecuted

      So that's:
      -

  • by Kohath ( 38547 ) on Sunday October 19, 2014 @06:29PM (#48182609)

    Police are searching for them under an old Ethernet bridge.

  • Free speech (Score:2, Informative)

    These internet trolls are cowards who are poisoning our national life. No one would permit such venom in person

    Actually, I would hope people would. Freedom of speech is a fundamental right. If you're offended by what someone says, get over it; government censorship is intolerable.

    • by oneiros27 ( 46144 ) on Sunday October 19, 2014 @07:35PM (#48182983) Homepage

      Threatening to hit someone when you're in person is assault. Yet, if done over the internet, you can threaten to kill them, rape them, burn their house down, etc... and that should be legal?

      Calling in a bomb threat isn't free speach, no matter if you were 'joking' or not. Screwing with people's lives, even if it's only one person and not a 'terroristic threat' shouldn't be, either.

      And the strange thing is ... I'd normally agree with you about the freedom of speach and people need to grow a thicker skin... but once you get threats of violence, that's drawing the line.

      I've had a stalker, and even though she was just crazy, not violent, I can say that you will *never* understand what this can do to a person. I knew who my stalker was (she worked with me, and management wouldn't do crap about it; luckily, we worked different shifts) ... but you start panicking every time you see someone in a crowd that might be her. You shut down when someone that you've chatted with on mailing lists meets you in person for the first time and expresses enthusiasm for meeting you.

      So, in summary : fuck you and I hope you die in a fire. (yay freedom of speach!)

      • Yet, if done over the internet, you can threaten to kill them, rape them, burn their house down, etc... and that should be legal

        1. That's already illegal in every European country.

        2. Threatening to kill someone is not trolling, and any politician who conflates trolling with death threats should be kicked out of his or her office ASAP.

  • by gweihir ( 88907 ) on Sunday October 19, 2014 @06:39PM (#48182665)

    Of course. It is just like in 1984: Language gets controlled to that people may not voice their thoughts anymore.

    • Of course. It is just like in 1984: Language gets controlled to that people may not voice their thoughts anymore.

      The geek doesn't think. He rants.

      When he does think, he is perfectly capable of twisting words and ideas into whatever new and unimagined form suits him best.

      The geek who claims to speak for Orwell should try reading him sometime.

  • by Joe_Dragon ( 2206452 ) on Sunday October 19, 2014 @07:02PM (#48182787)

    So why should some get 2 YEARS for this?

  • by Cederic ( 9623 ) on Sunday October 19, 2014 @07:03PM (#48182795) Journal

    I live in the UK and I think Chris Grayling is an utter twat. I hope he loses his seat in the election, and that causes a terminal depression.

    He deserves it.

    There are already laws against harassment, against threatening rape or murder, against pretty much anything he wants to try and cover with further legislation. So fuck him, I reserve the right to offend him and if I see him in the street then he'll find out that I don't just do that online.

  • by gmuslera ( 3436 ) on Sunday October 19, 2014 @07:07PM (#48182821) Homepage Journal
    Anyone that complain about government, denounce abuses, disagree with GHCQ surveillance and so on will be considered trolls.
  • Politicians and celebrities want to be able to protect themselves from criticism.

  • Yeah, here in China, people can be jailed for "spreading rumours" online. Such measures are necessary to preserve harmony in society. It's nice to see the UK catching up.
    (/snark)

  • by GrahamCox ( 741991 ) on Sunday October 19, 2014 @07:51PM (#48183055) Homepage
    I think a lot of people are misinterpreting the intent of this. Much as I despise the current UK government, and am deeply concerned about surveillance and censorship and erosion of privacy and free speech generally, I think in this case it's not what's being proposed at all.

    Basically, I believe in being free to do as you please unless it harms others. There's no doubt that trolling, in some cases, does harm, but right now the punishment isn't very harsh for the worst cases, and most people that indulge in trolling feel they have the "right" to do it (those were the exact words used by a recent troll who attacked the McCanns online and was called out on it by the news media; she later committed suicide. A pretty sad case for everyone concerned). This is confusing the right to free speech with a non-existent right to slander and libel with impugnity. If you are attacked, and it harms you (for some definition of harm) then you should have the right to prosecute the perpetrator to the extent the law allows.

    All this is proposing is that harmful trolling is taken more seriously, and I agree with that. A judge will rule on the merit of any case brought, and hand down a sentence as he sees fit. This is merely proposing that the maximum available sentence is extended from 6 months to 2 years, and I agree with that. Note that this has nothing to do with the government having greater powers to monitor online activity - the judiciary have nothing to do with the government in the UK. If someone is trolled online and they feel it has harmed them, it is up to them to report it and press charges, and present their case in court. The government are not involved at all.
  • Asking for heavier penalties is a simple way for a politician to make it appear they're doing something about an issue without actually solving it. In terms of deterrence, I think a 6-month sentence should be enough: online harassers are not thinking "it's only 6 months," they're thinking "I'm anonymous, they'll never catch me."

    • by jbolden ( 176878 )

      I don't know the UK system. But if this were the USA the issue might be this: "I don't want a harassment conviction on my record. Worst case is 6 mo which means I likely get 4 mo, so no jail time. I'm going to trial". But with "2 years = felony. The DA is letting me plead to a misdemeanor with no jail time. I'm taking the plea".

  • When you think about it most of the "mainstream" media is based on trolling. More subtle than "Your mom .... last night ... with ... and ... and ... " yet just the same they deliberately and persistently push the audiences buttons and willfully mislead to attract attention and ever larger audiences.

    The online media is much more aggressive in this regard routinely offering structures granting massive audiences to random people visiting their site.. This is a bit like keeping a stack of 100's in an unlocke

  • by Beeftopia ( 1846720 ) on Sunday October 19, 2014 @08:21PM (#48183249)

    Imprecise laws give authorities a great deal of discretion about the threat of prosecution. And discretion here is another name for arbitrary power.

    Do they mean targeted harassment or libel? Or theft or fraud? Or do they mean playing devil's advocate?

    Conflating the harassment of the McCanns with "trolling", a broad term, is just a power grab by an opportunist. It might sound politically beneficial right now but curbs on basic freedoms have blowback. Consequences.

    The article reads like satire. I'd expect it out of a backward or totalitarian regime, but not the UK.

"Show me a good loser, and I'll show you a loser." -- Vince Lombardi, football coach

Working...