In the UK, Internet trolls could face up to two years in jail under new laws, Justice Secretary Chris Grayling has said. He told the Mail on Sunday quadrupling the current maximum six-month term showed his determination to "take a stand against a baying cyber-mob". Mr Grayling was speaking days after TV presenter Chloe Madeley suffered online abuse, which Mr Grayling described as "crude and degrading". She has welcomed the proposed laws but said social media should be regulated.
This discussion has been archived.
No new comments can be posted.
Internet Trolls in UK Face up-to Two Years in Jail under New Laws
|
Log In/Create an Account
| Top
| 25 comments
| Search Discussion
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
(Score: 3, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Monday October 20 2014, @11:51AM
... like freedom of speech.
People making rape / death threats online are not trolls. They are inarticulate, knuckle-dragging arseholes and we already have laws to deal with them.
(Score: 2) by Nerdfest on Monday October 20 2014, @11:57AM
I was going to say the same thing. All of these things where new "cyber x" laws are created are silly. If you said the same thing in person, over the phone, or via a letter, the same laws should (and do, I believe) apply.
(Score: 2) by VLM on Monday October 20 2014, @02:51PM
So... you're asking for them to ignore it? Crazy homeless dude says he's going to kill you, cops don't care as long as he doesn't do anything?
I'm just saying that doing something on the internet shouldn't be punishable by six months when doing something in person results in the cops laughing.
"Doing the same thing" might not get you the result you want, although you haven't clearly articulated what you want.
(Score: 2) by Nerdfest on Monday October 20 2014, @08:36PM
No, I'm saying they had laws in place to deal with this; no new ones were needed. If harsher penalties were required, they could have increased the penalties for the existing laws.
(Score: 2) by VLM on Monday October 20 2014, @09:38PM
Right then, I think we mostly agree although I don't understand how crazy homeless dude says he's going to kill me when he's close enough that I can unfortunately smell him means the cops LOL, but some 12 year old kid on the other side of the planet says he's going to kill someone on the other side of the planet means six months time.
Probably comes down to which is easier to document and prosecute and which looks better on TV. Gotta love "justice".
(Score: 2) by kaszz on Monday October 20 2014, @12:55PM
There was a time when things like this didn't took up so much mental bandwidth. It tended to be related to that you needed actual skills to even get online, and money wouldn't give you a pass either. So remove these make it ease stuff. And interactions were related to discuss and solve technical or research issues. Not to discuss people in general.
(Score: 2) by tibman on Monday October 20 2014, @01:34PM
AOL/Compuserve is quite old. Before 56k dial-up even. You'd have to go very far back to find a web that wasn't easy. However i would say that at the time it wasn't "cool" and there wasn't much consumer content online. Most content was created by users.
SN won't survive on lurkers alone. Write comments.
(Score: 2) by kaszz on Monday October 20 2014, @01:44PM
Both connecting and creating takes skills ;-)
And the absence of dead fish following commercial pointers perhaps gives less space for people that just don't add anything, except more bytes.
And in many cases people had to sign a paper that they would follow the net etiquette before being allowed online.
(Score: 2) by tibman on Monday October 20 2014, @07:10PM
I would certainly agree that it took more skills to actually own and operate a computer in the 80-90's.
SN won't survive on lurkers alone. Write comments.
(Score: 2) by kaszz on Monday October 20 2014, @07:55PM
Many trolls tend to go away when the bar for intellectual performance is raised slightly. The question is how to accomplish that in way that still includes the right people.
(Score: 2) by tibman on Monday October 20 2014, @08:06PM
Which is even more difficult when the "right people" have strong opposing opinions to whoever controls the inclusion/exclusion mechanism : /
SN won't survive on lurkers alone. Write comments.
(Score: 2) by tibman on Monday October 20 2014, @02:55PM
The term troll has distorted a lot in the past five years or so. Reminds me of how hacker became a much larger umbrella for people to live under. Troll may get some more nuanced variations in the coming years.
SN won't survive on lurkers alone. Write comments.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday October 20 2014, @03:48PM
Proper trolls do not need to resort to threats.
(Score: 2) by mojo chan on Monday October 20 2014, @04:49PM
It's not about rape / death threats. As you say, those are covered. It's about people using social media to bully others, which has resulted in suicides in the past. You could blame the victim for being weak minded or not simply leaving social networks I suppose.
const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
(Score: 1) by purple_cobra on Monday October 20 2014, @04:58PM
Amen.
In regard to the people saying "we already have laws", ISTR reading earlier that there are ~3 laws which could potentially cover the prosecution of dickheads like this and that ambiguity, of course, is meat and drink to a defence lawyer. I would imagine he could be tried under the Computer Misuse Act (if it still exists; my knowledge of this sort of thing is probably out of date) if he is banned and then tries to work around it. Personally, I'd prefer punishment in terms of making him walk around his town/village wearing a big sign around his neck stating "I am a dickhead" for 8 hours a day, 5 days a week, for maybe 3 months or so; it is likely to be more educational to the perpetrator and would, I suspect, be less likely to see him re-offend.
(Score: 4, Interesting) by WizardFusion on Monday October 20 2014, @12:14PM
Or, don't fucking use it.
If you are being harassed, then just block the people, or stop using social media. It's not rocket science.
(Score: 4, Insightful) by q.kontinuum on Monday October 20 2014, @01:17PM
That doesn't stop them from destroying the victims reputation, and also I don't think it's the victim who should leave social media. That's not how society works (or at least not how it should work).
OTOH, I do agree that we shouldn't have a whole bunch of new laws and cyber-patrols to monitor each and everything. I don't have a good solution to propose; just thinking your proposal isn't one either.
Registered IRC nick on chat.soylentnews.org: qkontinuum
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday October 20 2014, @03:58PM
There are already libel and slander laws. This is in reference to trolls. Trolls are intentionally inflammatory to get a response. The only way to fight them is not to feed them. Even with all of these laws, anyone can use intentionally inflammatory language anyway.
'Is Chris Grayling a pedophile?'
'Has Chris Grayling been beating his wife?'
And so on. Even though those statements are in the spirit of what he is trying to stop, putting people in jail for those sorts of words would be a horrible thing. No one could say anything bad about anyone, or anything particularly good about anyone if someone else does not like them (i.e. 'The neo-nazis aren't so bad, they just yell at people instead of genocide. Clearly better than the old Nazis.'). It would all be considered this new nebulous version of trolling or 'crude and degrading' speech that they are trying to stop. It clearly is not the right action. What is the right action is to ignore the comments if they upset you so much, including leaving social media. There is no victim-punishment with that, because there is no clear victim in cases that are mere trolling and not outright harassment. Is it wrong to expect atheists to leave a church if they are offended by what the priest is saying? Clearly not. So why is it wrong for people to leave other areas if they do not like what other people are saying.
(Score: 2) by strattitarius on Monday October 20 2014, @05:33PM
I don't think it's the victim who should leave social media. That's not how society works
I think that is EXACTLY how society works. It is legal to be a racist. You can hate anyone you want. In private settings I am pretty sure you can say just about anything you want. These groups/people exist. And it is all completely legal. And we should not try to banish these people to some remote village or to jail. We simply do not agree, offer opposing opinions, and try to live in peace without breaking any rules/laws that actually do affect how we live.
Many people don't care for racism, and therefore can't accept the point above, or will attempt to rationalize why that's different. So replace a racist group with one that would like to separate from the US (such as the founding fathers), or one that tries to expose government and police corruption. Once you find a topic that you agree with, it's usually pretty easy to rationalize why others must simply let them be.
Social media regulation is a solution if done by the private company that runs the site. If enough people only want to see nice things, I am pretty sure someone will create a site for them. Yep, the already did and even got a pretty catchy name: christianfaithbook.com
Slashdot Beta Sucks. Soylent Alpha Rules. News at 11.
(Score: 2) by strattitarius on Monday October 20 2014, @05:40PM
* = I don't give a rats ass, just letting you know there are MANY in our society that probably don't really approve of her use of the internet.
Slashdot Beta Sucks. Soylent Alpha Rules. News at 11.
(Score: 0) by rfree on Monday October 20 2014, @02:19PM
It's good idea to isolate from assholes.
This is the Anarchy mode of operation.
Sadly, we live in democracy, and if you convince enough people then "zomfg jail all the trolls, if you don't agree you're a rapist and pedophile DURRRRRRR" becomes the new law. Thanks democracy.
(Score: 3, Insightful) by sjames on Monday October 20 2014, @06:32PM
If you don't like being mugged become a shut-in?
(Score: -1, Troll) by Anonymous Coward on Monday October 20 2014, @12:37PM
Why is the dumb broad so afraid of hitting back, that she needs to do this?
Instead of writing dumb laws, the dumb ass politician should have developed her infiltration and hacking skills.
Nothing says Fuck Off as elegantly as a few million email messages every hour and/or a tiny 10-20gbps ddos sustained for a week or so.
Maybe if really angry, robocalls at 4.20 to everyone troll communicates irl to?
If they start to cry, get more amplifiers and research some more, hit their company, their social circle, their cat&dog's company etc.
Doxx them...
Pretty tame, imo. Later, other, more sinister methods could be used...
If the dumb broad could do any of those things, then she wouldn't need protection against trolls.
Cos only those anonymous enough would be able to troll her sucessfully and not get their precious offline persona hurt.
Oh wait, she probably has no idea how those computer thingies work.
And she's anglo-saxon.
Which brings me to my point: are the human societies so broken, that this perversion of law is seen as positive?
And why someone, who has such will to power, WANTS no power of her own, and relies on others to fight for her?
Why is there no death sentence for restricting the flow of information, damn it!
(Score: 1, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Monday October 20 2014, @12:50PM
Because she is affected regardless of her participation. And some people doesn't have the time or skills to do vigilante e-justice.
(Score: 2) by clone141166 on Monday October 20 2014, @03:15PM
Why do we need new laws that only apply online? As others have pointed out, there are already laws against harassing people. Threatening someone with physical violence is *already* illegal, it's called assault. The medium someone chooses to communicate a threat should be irrelevant.
New laws aren't needed. The existing laws need to be enforced. But enforcing the law doesn't get votes, making a splash by passing new "anti cyber bullying" laws does.
The worst part is these new laws won't even be enforced for average people like you or I. They will only be exercised when some big name somebody makes a commotion or a politician needs a scapegoat to make himself look "tough on bullying".