Internet trolls face up to two years in jail under new laws

[TheBear]

Internet trolls face longer sentences



"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."

 

[brinny]

Internet trolls face longer sentences



"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."

 

[MyOwnSockPuppet]

My (fairly obvious) first concern is who defines what a troll is. Gven my preponderance for sacred-cow tipping (which I do try to do on an equal-opportunity basis) am I a troll? Is this likely to be restricted to below-the-line in comment sections or is being unreasonably hateful and fact-twisting in the body of articles fair game for this sort of crackdown?

If so then I'm positively looking forward to the Mail's day in court (and the Guardian's too)

Then again, given that Chloe Madley's route into fame was because her parents were daytime tv presenters (from the days before cable/sattelite took off) and her credits include some of the most mind-numbing reality shows around hasn't she suffered enough without any online campaign

 

[Ken Rank]

I would like the government to remain away from this as the right to free speech is at risk. But what I am in favor of is removing the ability to speak from behind the mask of made up screen names. We should speak openly as who we are, and if we are uncomfortable doing that, then we probably don't need to be saying it. Most of the trouble makers I see, especially on Facebook, are people writing nasty things but hiding behind made up names.

 

[Aryeh Jay]

I would like the government to remain away from this as the right to free speech is at risk. But what I am in favor of is removing the ability to speak from behind the mask of made up screen names. We should speak openly as who we are, and if we are uncomfortable doing that, then we probably don't need to be saying it. Most of the trouble makers I see, especially on Facebook, are people writing nasty things but hiding behind made up names.

I cannot recommend that in today’s world with the number of unhinged individuals out there.

 

[GeorgeJ]

Internet trolls face longer sentences

....in Great Britain......

 

[Kenny'sID]

My (fairly obvious) first concern is who defines what a troll is.

No kidding, talk about vague law. lol

 

[TheBear]

....in Great Britain......

Correct.

 

[MyOwnSockPuppet]

Correct.

Probably not even that, I'd recommend taking anything from the Mail with more than a pinch of salt (i.e. probably enough to defrost a motorway or two).

 

[TheBear]

Public Order Act 1986

 

[Ken Rank]

I cannot recommend that in today’s world with the number of unhinged individuals out there.

I don't mean this in a derogatory way toward you or anyone else... but shouldn't we trust in the Lord that we can speak and He will protect? You're right, there are unhinged individuals out there BUT... if I want to find out who "Aryeh Jay" is... I probably can do so. And... the one with the real power in this "world system," the government... already knows who anyone online is unless that person creeps around from cyber cafe' to cyber cafe'.

 

[brinny]

Public Order Act 1986

Thank you for the link.

 

[Almost there]

I would like the government to remain away from this as the right to free speech is at risk. But what I am in favor of is removing the ability to speak from behind the mask of made up screen names. We should speak openly as who we are, and if we are uncomfortable doing that, then we probably don't need to be saying it. Most of the trouble makers I see, especially on Facebook, are people writing nasty things but hiding behind made up names.

The good news is that this sort of stuff is outside the US. It seems crazy from a US perspective.

 

[Aryeh Jay]

I don't mean this in a derogatory way toward you or anyone else... but shouldn't we trust in the Lord that we can speak and He will protect? You're right, there are unhinged individuals out there BUT... if I want to find out who "Aryeh Jay" is... I probably can do so. And... the one with the real power in this "world system," the government... already knows who anyone online is unless that person creeps around from cyber cafe' to cyber cafe'.

Oh, there is enough info just on CF to find out who I am and where I live. Several pictures I have posted in the past have my GPS location imbedded in them and last year’s CF Staff holiday video card has my picture. Once I found that out I deleted a lot of posts that had pic in them but I am sure that a few are still there.

A few years ago on “Military.com” I posted under my name and someone did not like what I said. Calls to my command were made to report loud underage sex parties at my apartment involving alcohol. What they did not know was that my Division Officer and Chief Petty Officer also lived in the same complex and said that nothing of the sort happened. But it still got NCIS and the Bremerton PD involved.

 

[Ken Rank]

Oh, there is enough info just on CF to find out who I am and where I live. Several pictures I have posted in the past have my GPS location imbedded in them and last year’s CF Staff holiday video card has my picture. Once I found that out I deleted a lot of posts that had pic in them but I am sure that a few are still there.

A few years ago on “Military.com” I posted under my name and someone did not like what I said. Calls to my command were made to report loud underage sex parties at my apartment involving alcohol. What they did not know was that my Division Officer and Chief Petty Officer also lived in the same complex and said that nothing of the sort happened. But it still got NCIS and the Bremerton PD involved.

Those are the people I am talking about though... generally, they are the ones who would do something like that anonymously but would never even dream of doing it in person.

 

[ThatRobGuy]

The good news is that this sort of stuff is outside the US. It seems crazy from a US perspective.

Yeah, no kidding...

Especially with the overwhelming sensitivity both sides seem to have these days...I could see people tossing out that accusation left and right just to get their political rivals locked up when they made them angry on Facebook.

 

[MoonlessNight]

I remember when I first started using the internet, it was stressed that you should attempt to remain anonymous and not share personal information. At the time the main concern was in terms of the risk of predators and fraudsters.

Now we live in an environment where people openly state that others should face violence for their beliefs, and where people have tracked down the personal information of posters to attempt to have them fired from their jobs, to have their properties damaged, and to generally ruin their lives, all because of one post on the internet. And yet suddenly now people claim that only cowards would remain anonymous.

Personally I think that people who think that anonymity is cowardly should not only post their full personal information online, including address and place of employment, but also the personal information of their spouses, parents, children and so on. If you want to lecture other about being cowardly, put your money where your mouth is.

 

[rambot]

1) Funny.
Not a SINGLE thought from anyone about the rather simple strategy:
GET off-the-bloody-line. Seriously. Why do people act like if you don't have an FB/Insta/whatever account, you are not alive.
The internet is good for commerce and reading about other, INTELLIGENT people's INFORMED opinions. It is NOT good for reading ANYONE'S opinion.

You can live in this world and not be in social media.
2) I do think cyber bullying is a problem. And threats that undermine (or threaten) someone's physical safety should be treated as if they were shared face to face. If THAT is the purpose of this law, I'm all for it. But given the lack of info (and my not reading the article), I'll just stop there.

People here seem a bit wary of it. And yet, I would wager they wouldn't necessarily have a problem with bullying policies in their children's school or work place.

 

[MoonlessNight]

2) I do think cyber bullying is a problem. And threats that undermine (or threaten) someone's physical safety should be treated as if they were shared face to face. If THAT is the purpose of this law, I'm all for it. But given the lack of info (and my not reading the article), I'll just stop there.

People here seem a bit wary of it. And yet, I would wager they wouldn't necessarily have a problem with bullying policies in their children's school or work place.

Ironically, such laws can easily become the tools of cyberbullies. Provoke the target into attacking you online, save the evidence, and now you get to use it to get the law to move against your target.

 

[rambot]

Ironically, such laws can easily become the tools of cyberbullies. Provoke the target into attacking you online, save the evidence, and now you get to use it to get the law to move against your target.

"Provoke the target into attacking you online".
Ma'am, if you are of weak enough character that you can be provoked to the point of threatening someone's safety, it is not the fault of the person provoking you. It is your inability to turn it off.
"You can only control your own behaviour, not someone else's"....famous counselling line that is as true as the day is long.