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.
Much as I despise trolls (Score:5, Insightful)
As much as I despise trolls, I despise heavy-handed government censorship even more.
Re:Much as I despise trolls (Score:5, Insightful)
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!
Re:Much as I despise trolls (Score:4, Insightful)
Agreed, In real life you don't go to jail for 2 year for being rude what makes the internet so special.
Re:Much as I despise trolls (Score:4, Informative)
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.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:3)
Ashford v Thornton was after the Declaration of Independence by some margin, and no other challenge to the right of trial by combat appears on the United States judicial record. The ONLY theoretical hurdle to TBC is the UN Declaration on Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms, to which the United States is signatory by virtue of its permanent position on the UN Security Council.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
As we all know, it's polite to punch people in the face who said something that you don't like. That's how rational people behave.
As far as I'm concerned, you have no business resorting to physical violence except if you're defending yourself or others from physical violence.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
There is a point to which verbal abuse should be considered to evoke a primal defensive response. I have seen people literally followed around with a harrassing mouth shoved in their faces that they couldn't get away from. While it is honorable to try to defuse a situation like that without resorting to violence, I can also see where someone who is stressed by unknown factors might simply throw a punch. And if I were a judge, in a case like that I might very well just let them walk, considering it legiti
Re: (Score:3)
There is a point to which verbal abuse should be considered to evoke a primal defensive response.
Then you're not exactly a rational being; you're just a barbarian. Hopefully you get thrown in jail/fined, and hopefully you learn your lesson.
Re: (Score:3)
Then you're not exactly a rational being; you're just a barbarian.
Not according to the Supreme Court [wikipedia.org]:
In Chaplinsky v. New Hampshire (1942), the Supreme Court held that speech is unprotected if it constitutes "fighting words". Fighting words, as defined by the Court, is speech that "tend[s] to incite an immediate breach of the peace" by provoking a fight, so long as it is a "personally abusive [word] which, when addressed to the ordinary citizen, is, as a matter of common knowledge, inherently likely to provoke a violent reaction". Additionally, such speech must be "direct
Re:Much as I despise trolls (Score:4, Insightful)
Where does the freedom to "say what I don't like" end and harassment begin? You wouldn't be able to follow someone around while they're in public, yelling insults, all day, every day. Eventually you'd get a restraining order, and if you violated it, you'd go to jail. At some point "saying what I don't like" becomes more damaging to my quality of life than a punch in the face.
Re:Much as I despise trolls (Score:5, Informative)
In terms of content, you can say whatever the fuck you like about me. In terms of place and time and manner, you can't say whatever the fuck you like on my front lawn, because that's trespassing. You can't say whatever the fuck you like about me in my living room, because if you break into my house I will engage in legitimate self-defense and you will be quickly be unconscious or dead.
You can say whatever the fuck you like about me when we're in public, but if you continually follow me around at some point you are expressing a threat and committing assault. That has nothing to do with what you're saying, though, it applies even if you're silent -- it's the physical presence that's a threat.
You can say whatever the fuck you like about me on the internet or on TV or in a letter or on the phone or whatever. Unless you make a specific threat, and can be reasonably believed to have the means to carry it out, it's not assault. "I'm going to drop a nuclear bomb on Tom's house!" is not a threat, unless you command a nuclear arsenal. "Somebody ought to shoot Tom!" is offensive, but I don't have a right to not be offended, and unless someone is pointing a gun at me at that moment it's not assault or encouraging assault.
A nation with an interest in freedom could handle these cases without any new laws against trolling, using the same legal principles that have existed since the first idiot was prosecuted for mailing a threatening letter. But a moral panic about the 'net is fertile ground for authoritarians.
Re:Much as I despise trolls (Score:4, Informative)
Cool, so I can put up a webpage alleging that you are a paedophile then?
Despite what some loudmouths on Internet may proclaim, there are forms of speech that are damaging and therefore infringing on other people's rights. A government does have a legitimate interest in having those forms of speech curtailed, as much as it has an interest in having harmful physical acts like assault and battery curtailed.
Harassment, slander and libel, direct incitement to violence? It is up to the Frea Speach advocates to defend why these should be allowed, not for the rest of us to why we shouldn't have to put up with this in a civilised society.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:3)
You do realize that all laws are ultimately enforced via force? Anyways it's perceived possibility that keeps things civil not the employment of them. Lets remember that trolls tend to be social inept misanthropes, a simple glower IRL often sends them looking for an easier target.
Re: (Score:3)
It's not censorship since they have to actually do their trolling first.
Re: (Score:3)
no, retroactive censorship does exist - in most democracies, actually. Prime example is the Hansard record, where entire debates have been erased on Tony Blair and Gordon Brown's watches in attempts to hide their criminality. Fortunately some of us have eidetic memories and reliable means of caching web content.
Re: (Score:3)
it's a matter of public record. Sort of.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/new... [telegraph.co.uk]
Health minister Simon Burns must consider himself lucky not to have been disciplined - not so far anyway - for describing, under his breath in the Commons yesterday, Speaker John Bercow as ''a stupid, sanctimonious dwarf''.
Although the remark was picked up by the Press Gallery, Mr Bercow did not hear it, or affected not to hear it.
But when he heard about it, he said that no record had been made, implying that he had ordered the comment
Re: (Score:2)
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.
Re: (Score:2)
The purpose of the law is not to silence trolls. Trolls will not be the ones going to jail.
Re:Much as I despise trolls (Score:5, Informative)
we HAVE Magna Carta. We HAVE a Bill of Rights. We HAVE a written Constitution.
1215, 1688 and 1688 respectively.
yeah sorry, America, your Constitution is based on a document written into Law 88 years before yours was.
Re:Much as I despise trolls (Score:4, Funny)
So what qualifies? (Score:5, Interesting)
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 . .
Re: (Score:2)
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.
Re:So what qualifies? (Score:5, Informative)
However the Communcations Act of 2003 is interpreted, is seems. See Wikipedia [wikipedia.org]:
Re: (Score:3)
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!!"
The law comes to Deadwood. (Score:5, Insightful)
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.
Re: (Score:3)
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.
Re:The law comes to Deadwood. (Score:4, Insightful)
I think it qualifies as free speech. But a threat that seems likely to be acted upon may require an investigation to see if it's going to be acted upon.
Hence the difference between online and offline speech - "I'm going to rape your pets to death" is far more actionable when you're standing in front of the person's house as opposed to some maternal basement half a world away.
Re:The law comes to Deadwood. (Score:5, Insightful)
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.
Re: (Score:3)
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.
Re: (Score:2)
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.
Re: (Score:3)
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
Re: (Score:2)
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
Re: (Score:3)
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
Re:So what qualifies? (Score:4, Informative)
They're not - the judiciary and the government are entirely separate entities in the UK. Hence why the judiciary can preside over cases against the government.
Re:So what qualifies? (Score:5, Interesting)
Except that's not the reality of the situation at all.
Judges are paid by the Local Authorities whose local jurisdiction they operate under. That's done through Legal Aid, which is controlled by the Local Authorities.
Jurisdictions are defined by the areas served by the Local Authorities and the police who directly answer to them. Council Tax pays police salaries. It's right there on the itemised bill.
Ergo, the police are beholden to local authorities: they REFUSE to investigate criminal allegations against any member of a local authority staff. They REFUSE to arrest corrupt judges. The Crown Prosecution Service have on record a grand total of ZERO prosecutions ever or pending against serving judges. Judges REFUSE to jail police officers who demonstrably perjure themselves. I have ample anecdotal evidence of this (currently withheld from publication pending private criminal prosecutions against named judges), there is also plenty of evidence in the remarkable absence of stories in the mainstream media of serving police officers being jailed for criminal activity and a grand total of ZERO serving police officers EVER having been convicted and jailed for causing a wrongful death (even though there are several videos of police officers actually committing acts which directly resulted in death). They all piss in the same pot.
Trolls are the lowest form of life. . . (Score:5, Interesting)
. . . 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.
Re: Trolls are the lowest form of life. . . (Score:3, Interesting)
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)
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
Re: (Score:2)
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.
Re:Trolls are the lowest form of life. . . (Score:5, Interesting)
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.
Re: (Score:2)
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.
Re: (Score:3)
The right to swing firsts was an analogy made by Zechariah Chafee. The point is, no man has absolute rights or absolute liberties. They end when another person is substantially harmed or the rights of another person infringed upon.
Also, you really want a society where it is legal to give false testimony to a police officer or a court? Maybe someone who doesn't like you makes up a story about you, gets others to go along with it and gets you thrown into prison. After all, there is no disincentive to lyin
Re: (Score:3)
I'm not "walking back" from anything. While I understand your first post may have been a response engendered by a legitimately different interpretation of what I meant by, "near absolute", I did clarify what point and at this point you are purposefully arguing against a strawman you created rather than my actual argument.
Also, your comment about "natural rights" is not pedantry. It is sophistry. The Supreme Court and the populace recognizes that freedom of speech is a constitutional right. Trying to im
Re: (Score:2)
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
"AGW is a lie .... (Score:2)
Alright! We've got you surrounded! Put down the mouse and come out with your hands up!
Re: (Score:2)
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.
So as an American.... (Score:3)
bloody hell.
Define trolling (Score:4, Informative)
Re:Define trolling (Score:5, Informative)
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.
Re: (Score:3)
Why exactly is that not already the case through existing law?
It is, they're just increasing the punishment.
Re: (Score:2)
That used to be called "heresy," and it also came with consequences. What's old is new again.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
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:
So that's:
-
They are elusive (Score:5, Funny)
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.
There are limits to freedom of speach (Score:5, Insightful)
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!)
There are limits to freedom of speach (Score:3)
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.
Re: (Score:2)
Also, trolling online is fundamentally different from real-life stalking.
Screwing with people's lives, even if it's only one person and not a 'terroristic threat' shouldn't be, either.
That's completely subjective. Any such law needs to be destroyed immediately.
Re: (Score:3)
There is a big difference between someone making an empty threat about killing you and someone making the same online threat and including your real life address, the school that your kids go to including their route and such.
You also don't seem to understand that the first amendment only banned congress from passing laws limiting speech. Nothing about other levels of government including the courts (common law) or even the President (as CiC he can limit soldiers speech rights).
It can be argued that the 14t
Re: (Score:2)
Even the courts don't seem to agree with it. They'd rather modify it with invisible ink than face reality and go through the proper process (constitutional amendments).
That will include badmouthing politicans (Score:3)
Of course. It is just like in 1984: Language gets controlled to that people may not voice their thoughts anymore.
Re: (Score:2)
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.
Get less time for DUI or shoplifting (Score:3)
So why should some get 2 YEARS for this?
Chris Grayling is a cunt (Score:5, Informative)
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.
Re: (Score:3)
Careful, he could jail you for 2 years for that post.
Missing part (Score:3)
translation (Score:2)
Politicians and celebrities want to be able to protect themselves from criticism.
Cool. Just as good as China (Score:2, Interesting)
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)
It's not censorship or more government control (Score:5, Insightful)
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.
Cheap way to score political points (Score:2)
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."
Re: (Score:2)
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".
Trolls poised to take over the world (Score:2)
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
Trolling is a very broad term (Score:3)
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.
Re: (Score:2)
AC has no balls, either.
Re: (Score:2)
England called. You're in big trouble now.
Mohammed is the #1 boys name in England (Score:4, Funny)
Of course it's on topic. The topic is trolls.
Re: (Score:2)
Unless it's that guy who walks around downtown Phoenix with a sandwich board carrying similar rants...
Makes ya think, donut?
Re: (Score:2)
He's just teasing Chris Grayling.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Liberals in the US are salivating over the day they can do this.
I must really complain about the use of the term "liberal" as the far right democrat as a contrast to the further right republican party. A liberal, would be for the absolution of these laws, in such a manner that it would grant more freedoms or liberties to individuals.
Now, as for my stance on the law, I don't like it from the stance of increasing state power over individuals. At best, laws pertaining to harassment should be all that is needed for such cases. Restraining orders as a start, then go criminal
Re: (Score:2)
"absolution"
You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means.
Re: (Score:3)
His use was correct. Liberals are the first to demand everyone else walk on egg shells when their feelings get hurt.
A Libertarian will be the ones trying to remove such laws.
Yet it is right wing governments bringing in these laws. My right wing government loves increasing jail sentences, creating new crimes, expanding spying on their own citizens and the libertarian part stays quiet as long as their are tax cuts promised and certain parts of government are shrunk.
Re:Ahhhh.... (Score:4, Informative)
His use was correct. Liberals are the first to demand everyone else walk on egg shells when their feelings get hurt.
A Libertarian will be the ones trying to remove such laws.
liberal, a. and n. A. adj.: 5. Of political opinions: Favourable to constitutional changes and legal or administrative reforms tending in the direction of freedom or democracy.
Re:Ahhhh.... (Score:4, Insightful)
I know libertarians would say we should wait until the threat is carried out and someone is actually raped and killed, but in the real world most of us would prefer to stop it happening in the first place.
Your right to free speech does not include the right to (seriously) threaten me without recourse.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
Um, this law is wholly illiberal, why would liberals ever want this? Anyone wanting this is not liberal by definition.
This is a classic conservative type proposition, not surprisingly, being put forth by the UK's Conservative party who sit on the centre-right (with a handful of far-right elements like Peter Bone).
I suspect what you really mean is "People I don't like will love this law", but whoever those people are, I assure you they're not liberals by the very fact that this law change goes against libera
Re: (Score:2)
The CFAA mostly wouldn't apply. Though I imagine things like terroristic threats are a penalty in the USA and would allow for potential extradition.
Re: (Score:3)
You know it only applies to specific types of comments right?. ie "I'm going to kill you" "I'm going to rape you" type comments. You are free to be as much of a troll-tard as you like as long as you are not threatening someone.
From TFA one particular example was a girl who came out not supporting a return to professional football of a convicted rapist. She had extensive death and rape threats sent to her via social media. If you were to have written the same comments on a letter and posted it to her it
Re: (Score:2)
You know it only applies to specific types of comments right?. ie "I'm going to kill you" "I'm going to rape you" type comments.
What if it's a joke or something? I would think they would only act if there's evidence that the threat is likely going to be carried out, but this makes it sound like even a non-serious comment like that can get you in trouble.
well how would you like it if... (Score:2)
no reread it
Grayling cited the case of Chloe Madeley, the daughter of television presenters Richard Madeley and Judy Finnigan, who was trolled after she defended her motherâ(TM)s remarks about the convicted rapist Ched Evans.
Finnigan said Evans, who was released from prison last week after serving half of a five-year sentence for raping a 19-year-old woman, should be allowed to resume his career as a footballer because his rape had not been violent and he had not caused âoeany bodily harmâ. Chloe Madeley faced rape threats on social media after she defended her motherâ(TM)s remarks.
So basically her mother said it wasn't a bad rape as rapes go
So Chloe supported her mother (supporting the convicted rapist)
so then some "troll" says so would you like it if you were raped, nonviolently and without bodily harm? in reply to her tweets.
Obviously in 142 charactors or less, it becomes necessary to reduce the tweet to the bare minimum.
So we have the strange situation of an actual rapist serving 2 and a half years in prison for rape and a troll suggesting Chloe put herself in the vict
Re: (Score:2)
Which country does have free speech? Do tell, if you know of any.
Re: (Score:2)
Oh, that's off that one album, by whats-their-name.
F the UK (Score:4, Insightful)
At this time, they're exactly the opposite. They're on the front-lines of oppression, limiting freedom of speech and monitoring online and offline behavior all in the name of "save the children".
Re:F the UK (Score:5, Insightful)
Freedom of speech has never meant freedom from its consequences, and the fact that it's on the internet is entirely irrelevant.
Re:F the UK (Score:4, Insightful)
I agree. If by "poisoning" they mean people making insolts or dispatching flying penises in Second Life or stuff like that, then it's a bill too far. But if by "poisoning" they mean launching flickering images on an epilepsy forum to try to cause seizures, "doxxing", making legitimate rape and murder threats, etc, then I think it's absolutely justified. All too often is there the assumption that what happens online doesn't warrant enforcement, even if it's something that crosses over into the real world.
Everyone has the right to free speech, but it ceases being free speech when it crosses certain bounds (shouting fire in a crowded theatre, incitement to violence, solicitation of criminal activity, etc). All of these cases are nuanced and require careful balance, but what they should not be is ignored.
Re: (Score:3)
All of these cases are nuanced and require careful balance
It doesn't seem that nuanced. It seems to me the question is whether you're in trouble for expressing an unpopular idea (genuine infringement of freedom of expression), or for encouraging violence/panic. The epilepsy example is a deliberate act to cause harm which happens to take the form of a digital submission, but it's not really 'expression'.
I'm sure there are some interesting edge-cases, but this distinction seems important.
Re:F the UK (Score:5, Interesting)
All of these cases are nuanced and require careful balance
It doesn't seem that nuanced. It seems to me the question is whether you're in trouble for expressing an unpopular idea (genuine infringement of freedom of expression), or for encouraging violence/panic. The epilepsy example is a deliberate act to cause harm which happens to take the form of a digital submission, but it's not really 'expression'.
I'm sure there are some interesting edge-cases, but this distinction seems important.
There's a third path: direct assault with intent to cause distress. That's what trolls are famous for, and recent news reports have had quite a bit of coverage of everything from people having to alter their lifestyles to cases of outright troll-induced suicide.
Re: (Score:3)
Everyone has the right to free speech, but it ceases being free speech when it crosses certain bounds (shouting fire in a crowded theatre, incitement to violence, solicitation of criminal activity, etc). All of these cases are nuanced and require careful balance...
And everyone of those crimes are accounted for in already existing laws. So political peacocking for the sake of their constituents, or whatever they are known as over there, doesn't do anything productive. All they are doing is fuzzing the line of demarcation for what is a crime and what isn't in the hopes that they can grab more supporters or hold on to the ones who are already there.
Let me ask you for your honest opinion on this; if I anonymously threaten to hurt you, does it make a difference to you whe
Re:F the UK (Score:5, Insightful)
Sadly there's an element of our society that thinks it's funny and/or acceptable to threaten violence and specifically rape on people for simply expressing their views. A recent case where a woman was bombarded with these kind of threats for simply campaigning to keep a notable female on at least one of our bank notes comes to mind. The general population does not think this is an acceptable price to pay for free speech, hence legislation. I don't think you'll find many dissenting voices.
Re:F the UK (Score:4, Interesting)
I suggest reading a bit of history before you post crap like this. Just try The Desert War and The Battle for Caen as examples. The British, Americans, Russians and French all fought ferociously against the Germans, and at one point it was the British alone.