Britain threatens Internet 'trolls' with two years in jail

[hassanchop]

ph.news.yahoo.com/britain-threatens-internet-trolls-two-years-jail-110001975.html



People found guilty of Internet "trolling" in Britain could be jailed for up to two years under government proposals outlined on Sunday, following a number of high-profile cases of abusive and threatening behaviour on Twitter.Justice Secretary Chris Grayling told the Mail on Sunday newspaper: "This is a law to combat cruelty -- and marks our determination to take a stand against a baying cyber-mob."There has been increasing concern in Britain about the growing scourge of Internet "trolls" who post hate-filled messages on social media, often threatening their targets. The parents of missing girl Madeleine McCann are among the most recent victims, and last month a man was jailed for 18 weeks for what prosecutors described as "a campaign of hatred" against a female lawmaker. "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," Grayling said. "That is why we are determined to quadruple the current six-month sentence." Victims have long been calling for police and prosecutors to take online abuse more seriously and lawyers had anticipated an increase in sentences for those convicted of trolling. "There is a public interest in having people put away for a long time," Chris Holder, of London law firm Bristows, told AFP earlier this month. "It is putting someone in fear of their life and fear of physical harm. I think the law will develop and the sentences will go up and up." However, some lawyers and freedom of speech campaigners have warned that criminal sanctions should be the last resort. "Do we want to criminalise every social conduct that we find problematic?" Barbora Bukovska, a senior director at campaign group ARTICLE 19, said earlier this month. Prosecutions can currently be brought under a number of different laws, but the Crown Prosecution Service (CPS) last year introduced guidelines to address any confusion. It said messages sent via social media could be a criminal offence if they contain "credible threats of violence" or target an individual in a way that "may constitute harassment or stalking". The government proposes to amend two existing laws to extend the maximum jail term and also the time limit for prosecutions, from six months to three years.

[Bub (BLM)]

Holy shit, can we get that sort of thing going over here in the 'States?

[Malcolm]

Who wants to bet that a certain online group who shall remain nameless will start raiding and hacking soon?

[Deleted]

HAHAHA WHAT!? That just seems like a colossal waste of resources.

[HMARK Center]

The are interesting debates to be had on this, but it's going to be a hell of a thing to enforce it.

[EvenBaldobombHasAJob]

first off, good luck enforcing that. second, there's a huge difference between trolling and criminal harassment, which is what that guy was actually doing. I'm assuming you already have laws on the books for that and don't need extra ones.

[Oh Cry Me a Screwball]

Oct 22, 2014 1:06:05 GMT -5 Bub (BLM) said:

Holy shit, can we get that sort of thing going over here in the 'States?

We would need to construct jails at an impossible pace to make this a reality.

But on the other hand, YouTube comments could actually be readable now.

[Deleted]

The big issue is that if it's implemented it'll be done in a way that lacks the understanding/purpose of social media.

There SHOULD be a huge fix in how Twitter/Facebook/everywhere else handles people harassing and threatening and doxxing people, and legally a fair few countries have stated why it's so hard to truly act on legal proceedings against people who do those things, but it's not going to get any better if it's implemented by a government of the out of touch and those who could make the wording as vague as possible in order to stop anyone from commenting about certain issues ever (why would they do anything unless it benefited/had their own backs?)

PLUS the big bitter pill to swallow is that unless there's a significant political gain for the gov. in power from this, it'll just be done for show in the run up to the election year to make people think they're more in touch with the common man.

[J is Justice]

I love this.

[xCompackx]

Awesome idea, but I don't see them going anywhere near as far as they'd have to to enforce this. Many people who harass others online use proxies to conceal their real IP addresses so are they going to rope in intelligence agencies to find these people? If this law is going to become an actual deterrent against online abuse, they can't go halfway with enforcing it and I don't see Britain devoting that level of resources to tracking down trolls.

[kidglov3s]

Oct 22, 2014 1:25:09 GMT -5 Malcolm said:

Who wants to bet that a certain online group who shall remain nameless will start raiding and hacking soon?

4-cent_garbage?

[northernmonkey]

I think imprisoning these people would be a waste of taxpayer's money. Why not just give them heavy fines and ban them from internet access?

[Clash, Never a Meter Maid]

Oct 22, 2014 6:01:06 GMT -5 HMARK Center said:

The are interesting debates to be had on this, but it's going to be a hell of a thing to enforce it.

Maybe, but IMO there's a big difference between a poster being slightly annoying in a thread, and someone actively cyberstalking or harassing people. It's the latter that needs to be cracked down on, so I dunno if the slope is THAT slippery.

[Deleted]

Oct 22, 2014 8:29:19 GMT -5 Clash, Never a Meter Maid said:

Oct 22, 2014 6:01:06 GMT -5 HMARK Center said:

The are interesting debates to be had on this, but it's going to be a hell of a thing to enforce it.

Maybe, but IMO there's a big difference between a poster being slightly annoying in a thread, and someone actively cyberstalking or harassing people. It's the latter that needs to be cracked down on, so I dunno if the slope is THAT slippery.

It's less a matter of people not realizing that, and more on the front of cost of investigation & prosecution.

TONS of the worst types of people you'll find online are great with constant ID concealment and IP redirecting and all the rest, but there are thousands more who suck at it: they'll be known suspects, it's the sheer monetary cost to put time into investigating further/prosecuting on behalf of someone that means it's a no go.

The FBI has mentioned this a few times in the past in regards to anyone celebrity or non-celebrity being targeted by murder threats or terrorism of any kind, they take it seriously, but the world's run by dollar signs so they'll rarely pursue things.

It's why it's so hard to take a legislative idea (this one being a vague, no details, all public relation improvement one given the MP mentioning it) seriously: it won't work, and it if it does get used it'll miss the point entirely unless you can fess up the money yourself to bring someone/a group to court. Who has that much money? Not enough people who get attacked online, that's for sure.

Ideologically it'd be amazing to not be bothered online or in our homes or walking around by horrendous folk but it's always the same, if you don't get attacked/if something doesn't happen to those around you beyond words/digital information security incidents, then there's no money or danger reason why any authority would ever help unless you had the cash to pay for the prosecution yourself. It's the same deal with any other crime, don't have the money/the case doesn't have any possible way for law firm to make significant money? It's tough to ever push through if you're not rich.

[SsnakeBite, the No1 Frenchman]

I'd be happier about this if I weren't so certain that this law will be abused to Hell, especially as it is a law apparently made by people who don't understand the difference between trolling and stalking/harassment.

If we're talking about actual trolling, as in making mean-spirited but ultimately harmless jokes to get a rise out of people, sending people to jail over it, let alone for two years, is laughable and a slippery slope to engage on. If we're talking about harassment and threats, then laws already exist against those and should be enforced.

Like SalineSolution said, it really looks like a big publicity stunt.

[Bo Rida]

What a load of bollocks. The jails are full so judges avoid sending people to them unless they really have to.
There's no way anybody is ever going to serve two years for trolling unless they're bad enough to be breaking existing laws.

Police just admitted that people watching child porn get away with it as they don't have the resources to deal with the number of offenders.
www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/crime/11174715/Thousands-of-paedophiles-will-escape-justice-crime-chief-admits.html

All sorts of offenders of more serious crimes just get a caution including burglars with multiple offences and rapists.
www.standard.co.uk/news/crime/tens-of-thousands-of-criminals-including-rapists-and-burglars-escape-justice-as-police-dish-out-cautions-9620383.html

A women with 17 convictions for assault just got a suspended sentence for glassing a man in the face.
www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/violent-estate-agent-17-assault-4058509

If none of them get jail then trolls won't ever get two years.

[HMARK Center]

Oct 22, 2014 8:29:19 GMT -5 Clash, Never a Meter Maid said:

Oct 22, 2014 6:01:06 GMT -5 HMARK Center said:

The are interesting debates to be had on this, but it's going to be a hell of a thing to enforce it.

Maybe, but IMO there's a big difference between a poster being slightly annoying in a thread, and someone actively cyberstalking or harassing people. It's the latter that needs to be cracked down on, so I dunno if the slope is THAT slippery.

I agree with that part; I'm not a subscriber to slippery slope arguments, by and large.

The issue is simply enforcement, as lots of police forces and investigative bodies are still lagging far, far behind in terms of computer literacy and knowledge of what's going on online. The shakeup involved in enforcing this could be gigantic.

[Muskrat]

Oct 22, 2014 6:28:55 GMT -5 EvenBaldobombHasAJob said:

second, there's a huge difference between trolling and criminal harassment, which is what that guy was actually doing.

This. It's a pointless law, as the stuff being described (cyber stalking, death threats, harassment etc) would already be covered by existing laws so this amounts to just lipservice.


It actually reminds me of cell phone/driving laws, as atleast for me locally, there were always laws on the books enabling cops to ticket you for distracted driving, driving without due care etc. My cousin got a ticket for talking and driving in 2000 for god sakes, yet people everywhere acted like these were new rules.

[Deleted]

This is a great ruling since the Internet is full of complete assholes, but it's gonna get lost in a sea of vagueness due to how it'd be enforced.

For example, the troll line for "get outta here" is typically "f*** off and die". Some people will interpret that as a death threat, while others will defend it as a crude method of driving off the undesirables. How will this be enforced?

[thirteen3]

Trolling will be defied as anyone who disagrees with the ruling powers. Just you wait and see Sheeple!

SPOILER: Click to show

{Spoiler}Srsly that wouldn't surprise me.