Slashdot Mirror
In UK, Internet Trolls Could Face Two Years In Jail
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.
it thickens!
Liberals in the US are salivating over the day they can do this.
As much as I despise trolls, I despise heavy-handed government censorship even more.
I do not fail; I succeed at finding out what does not work.
Who gets to decide what qualifies as trolling?
." 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.
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 . .
. . . 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.
Alright! We've got you surrounded! Put down the mouse and come out with your hands up!
Have gnu, will travel.
I can trollolol people in jolly good England all day long, but if they troll us back, we can report them?
bloody hell.
So if anyone says something negative, are they now a troll and go to jail for two years?
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.
gut a damacracy you!
In royal England, damagecracy rulezz you!!
That has nothing to do with the subject here...or am I missing something?
Police are searching for them under an old Ethernet bridge.
Or is this something new? THIS is what happens when they take away your guns.
AC has no balls, either.
It little behooves the best of us to comment on the rest of us.
This will only catch the dumb ones, the smart ones will use overseas proxy servers in jurisdictions outside of UK control.
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.
Of course. It is just like in 1984: Language gets controlled to that people may not voice their thoughts anymore.
Most ACs are not even worth the keystrokes to insult them. Be generically insulted by this and ignored otherwise.
Of course it's on topic. The topic is trolls.
F the Queen, America FTW!
When does journalism, such as the Zoe Quinn debacle, become trolling?
We have seen how corrupt "real" aka commercial journalism of any sort is, whether it be on TV, radio, newsites, or official websites.
So why should some get 2 YEARS for this?
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.
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 would also have been a crime.
These laws are separated to libel or defamation laws.
Anyone that complain about government, denounce abuses, disagree with GHCQ surveillance and so on will be considered trolls.
see the human right violations made by england in 2011 alone:
http://web.archive.org/web/201...
They had more than 300 as much violations as Iceland, Liechtenstein and Andorra together!
And this is yet another violation.
Note that this is coming from the country where public employees are paid to spread lies on the internet. How Covert Agents Infiltrate the Internet to Manipulate, Deceive, and Destroy Reputations, GCHQ’s “Chinese menu” of tools spreads disinformation across Internet
Politicians and celebrities want to be able to protect themselves from criticism.
That's where it gets tricky I think.
There is a possibility that if you rile the wrong people (such as for eg kids of russian oligarchs) you might get arrested and extradited to UK :)
Its all about the money after all.
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)
Must suck to live in a country that doesn't have free speech. U mad bro?
I'm trying to teach myself to set people on fire with my mind... Is it hot in here?
I think, since the Internet was invented by America, that the freedom of speech should apply to the WWW. You don't like what someone has to say? Cool, ignore them, you have no right to tell other people what to think or feel. People saying, "I am offended by that, you can't say that" tell me two things. One, they don't know how to control their emotions and expect EVERYONE else to bend of backwards to please them and two, they are hypocrites. Everything said can "offend" someone, it's called growing up and dealing with it.
For instance, a masochist might be "offended" by simply saying, "Oh, what a lovely day it is today."
No, I don't know that.
The story gives some kind of example, but nowhere does it say that this would be limited to those kinds of statements.
Also, that chick just got mad because she trolled a bunch of people and they trolled back.
Me: yeah this rapist should go free
you: I hope he rapes you
Me: Wah wah wah I'm being trolled. call the police.
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.
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!)
Build it, and they will come^Hplain.
I know, this is a troll post, so I better stay out of the lame ass, poor excuse for a country.
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."
And you can have them. And you'll never work again, and you'll probably go to prison. Trying to defend yourself for claiming you're going to rape somebody in court or in the media is going to be one hell of a task.
England called. You're in big trouble now.
He's just teasing Chris Grayling.
When Fascism comes to America, it will call itself Anti-Fascism, and tell you to give up your guns.
"Threatening to hit someone when you're in person is assault." No it isn't it's THREATENING to assault someone. There's a difference.
"Calling in a bomb threat isn't free speach..." Technically it is. You're argument seems to be "We can't have absolute freedom of speech. That would be insane!" Which is fine, except for the fact that you seem to be implying that the constitution doesn't say we should have absolute freedom of speech.
The fact is that the constitution does garuntee the right to freedom of ALL speech. There really is no room for interpretation there. Maybe you disagree with the first ammendment. That's fine (it is a pretty hard thing to agree with); however I'd appreciate it if you not claim that you agree with it if you actually don't agree with it.
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.
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 unlocked car in a Wallmart parking lot overnight and being surprised when it turns up missing the next day.
If trolling is an epidemic it only got that way because Trolls have been well fed in environments where the objective function is maximizing advertising profits to the detriment of decency and integrity.
While I can't bring myself to defend threats of injury or death as free speech... this is a worlds away from Malicious Communications Act's "indecent or grossly offensive or information which is false and known or believed to be false by the sender" insanity.
I find it breathtaking TFA would focus almost entirely on rape threats while largely remaining silent on the really insane aspects of this law.
Where is that sensational article titled "Telling a fib will get you two years in jail?" ...
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.
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 victims shoes for a minute possibly serving 2 years for a hypothetical rape! I guess chloe and her mother will be all in favour of the troll returning to his former employment too.
At the heart of this is a real woman who was raped, she is the genuine victim. Not the minor celebs who wish to gossip about her rape over morning coffee on daytime tv, such as chloe's mother.
Blarney Quality Restaurant, Plants
Unless it's that guy who walks around downtown Phoenix with a sandwich board carrying similar rants...
Makes ya think, donut?
*Repent!Quit Your Job!Slack Off!The World Ends Tomorrow and You May Die!
Oh, that's off that one album, by whats-their-name.
*Repent!Quit Your Job!Slack Off!The World Ends Tomorrow and You May Die!
I guess they will line up to suck the net dick to suck besides ISLAM.
Exactly, how many 6 month sentences have the tards on high given to this date?
Want to make a bet?
Social commentary withheld.
uh... when did I make such a claim, again?
Political debates have me rolling my eyes so much I think I got optical whiplash. I should sue. - Foamy The Squirrel
It's the end of Slashdot as we know it !!!
Every child thats not on the streets anymore and throwing stones at windows of abandoned buildings, but on the computer trolling the internet is a relief for society, as repairing windows is way more expensive than deleting some offending posts.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v...
So now UK will jail you for this? Or the one making threats?
I've said it many times before, and will say it again. The UK is not what it used to be. It used to be the bastion of European freedom, the saviors against Hitler.
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".
I'm not a complete idiot... Some parts are missing.
Yeah but he didn't even link to Goatse! What happened to the wholesome, classic trolls like the GNAA? I tell you, this site has gone downhill when I don't even have to watch out for the giant stretched anus when clicking on AC links.
Sounds like a troll to me! Put that sucker away!
[......] the majority of the population bows to Mecca and Media five times a day [......]
Majority? What planet are you on?
You've been reading the lies spread by that British fascist group that seems to be like a disease on Facebook at the moment, haven't you?
Oh, I dunno - if he means counting both the Muslim and idiot populations together, then I have to agree; there are far more idiots and Muslims combined than any other single social group.
Idiots are rather prolific, after all.
An enigma, wrapped in a riddle, shrouded in bacon and cheese
GP is correct. Censorship means proactively preventing publication. This law may well be BAD. It is not censorship, by the definition of the word censorship. Again that doesn't mean it's a good law, it's just not murder, censorship, or jaywalking.
Basically anyone who disagrees with the government, their friendship with banksters and bloodshed they caused after invading a country based on lies (George Bush & Tony Blair). Even criticising a fast food outlet with "Your food sucks!" or a religion. Free-speech advocates and freedom fighters will now be victims of this anti-troll law. I sure hope people falsely accused will sue the government for all inconvenience caused.
These are an excerpt from the guidance. It covers the part about a joke and in essence shows it is restricted to credible threats of violence, harassment or stalking. Like every other law whether you are guilty or not will be decided after you are charged and put before a jury.
In 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]
Heavy handed government with already full prisons. No troll will be serving a prison sentence for 2 years.
Just like drugs, murder and etc... Where there's a high enough risk of long jail time somone will make money off of it. Professional troll services to the rescue.
by TheSpoom (715771) Uncaring Linux user here. I have nothing to add to this but please continue. *munches popcorn*
well well, now we've got UKIP supporters/Daily Mail (Hilter Supporting UK newspaper) readers who have shown no intelligence whatsoever infiltrating slashdot posts
"The hands that help are better far than lips that pray." - Robert Ingersoll (1833-1899)
You don't have the freedom to destroy a persons life in real life (stalking). Neither should you have that freedom on the internet.
Thank you, Bradley Manning, Edward Snowden and so many others, for courageously defending humanity, my freedom and more!
don't propagate such nonsense, you sound like a UKIP supporter and we know that UKIP supporters have no grasp of the facts
"The hands that help are better far than lips that pray." - Robert Ingersoll (1833-1899)
Cameron recently called 911 truthers "non-violent criminals", this new law comes right out of his playbook. so long, free world.
Everyone will be against this until it they are in the position to use it to silence the opposition. All off a sudden the opposition will become acceptable targets.
So who decides what is to defined as this abuse for this particular law?
There is a legal definition and set of precedence for its application??
Ive seen forums where anyone not adhering to the cliche think get labeled as 'trolls' for 'offending' people who act out their little attention whore behavior by being 'offended'; by anything that THEY dont agree with.
So its down to 'who decides' in the current PC environment.
Goatse? you mean The Prophet Mohammed's ANUS gaping anal hole waiting for a giant pig to fuck Mohammed in the ANUS? The prophet fuckmohammed gay pedophile ayesha raping faggot ass?
Chris likes to closet fuck dudes. We all know that. Chris is a fucking faggot lover and he sucks the dick of Islam and we know it. He also performs anal-lingus on the prophet mohammed's fucking dirty goat asshole. The prophet mohammed and chris like to behead people with dull butter knives, chop off clitorises, fuck-rape kids like mohammed did with ayesha, rape kids, rape boys and men, rape and fuck and sucks dicks just like the mentally retarded brain damages acolyte of Satan the Prophet Mohammed did. The Prophet Mohammed was a diseased child fucking pedophile. Chris Grayling , gayling , want Islam and Satan to win, like incest, rape by Sharia and Islam, and clitoris chopping and pederasty. Mohammed the Prophet and Chris Gayling are cock sucking raping pedophile faggot asshole rapist pig fucking loser pricks.
he's trying to earn his spurs as a troll
"The hands that help are better far than lips that pray." - Robert Ingersoll (1833-1899)
And now we have a traitor pederast child raping clitoris chopping Satanic traitor fucking puke named Barsteward. A drunk as his name implies, he likes to a bit drunk while the clitoris chopping head cutting pedophile rapist Prophet Mohammed or his jihadi gay brethren fuck him in the goat ass. YOULL BE THE DEATH OF US ALL, you fucking homosexual devil worshiping traitor pig fucker love of The Prophet Mohammed's dick in your faggot asshole.
We shove Jimmy Dean Homestyle Pork Sausage up The Profit Muhammad's ass. Then while the Giver strokes me off I shoot my wad in The Profit Muhammad's face after which we force The Profit Muhammad to fellate an 800 pound Chester White. Simultaneously two Hasidic rabbis open their kosher bowels unleashing torrents of gefilte shit on The Profit Muhammad's head and back while The Giver pumps The Profit Muhammad from behind. After the hog shoots its wad in The Profit Muhammad's mouth The Giver shoots his load up The Profit Muhammad's rectum. Then unexpectedly the Chester White roots out The Profit Muhammad's penis and testicles hungrily biting them off gobbling them down with full porcine fury. We bury the newly castrated The Profit Muhammad up to his nose in pig manure. Two AIDS infected Bowery whores stuff their used condoms and clotted tampon down The Profit Muhammad's throat and crack a bottle of Mad Dog 20/20 over his skull.
We then leave him for the hogs to munch on. The Profit Muhammad is swine feed and by tomorrow he will be swine manure.
GOAT KORAN
For it is written in Mine book that goats are PLEASING and HOLY in Mine eyes. I have told the Prophet Muhammad peace on him! that he should try a goat but he is an ass-infidel and pursues young Muslims. For this is pleasing in Mine eyes as well! I hereby issue a Fatwah: May the asses of the infidels be reamed by the Prophet peace on him! until they look like the goatse.cx man who is of the devil.
M______The
.______:;
.|\\___:;8=KORAN=*O_________:;____\__\_/_/
o____Prophet
h____Muhammad
a___./___o\
m___I______|
m___I____\==
a___\______/
d______||
F______:;\________________________Muslims
u______:;\\_______________________/______\
c______:;_\\_____________________/________\
k______:;__\\____________________/__o__o__\
s______:;___&&___:;:;:;:;:;:;:;:;|____>___/
A|_\\__:;________:;_________:;_____\----/
s|__\\_:;_______:;___________:;_
s|___\\:;:;:;:;:;_____________:;:;
ISLAM
Kill all Muslims. Kill all Muhammadans. Kill all Arabs. Kill all Towel Heads. Kill all Camel Jockeys. Kill all Sand Niggers. Kill all Dune Coons. Kill all Islam. Nuke their countries to hell. Nuke them again. Death to Islam. I piss on Mecca. I spit on the Koran. I shit on
Exactly, free speech of companies needs to be protected by fascist laws, or else we might loose it.
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.
Another victory for civilization. The internet will be forced to adapt to what we, the Real People, dictate. We have criminalized hacker "culture", we have destroyed gamer "culture", the last bastions of the failed "cyberspace revolution" are falling like domino pieces. You are defeated, "netizens". Deal with it.
First, they claim for the people who read the articles. Then, they came for the people who read the summary. Then they came for those who read the headline. And finally, the straw men have come for those who read the comments.
This is endemic to Slashdot now. Reading comprehension is verboten. There's also a huge uptick in spam on the Firehose and an incredible amount of brand new sockpuppet accounts going around making these straw man arguments.
Trolls are the lowest form of life. . .
People who start comments in subjects are the lowest form of life.
. . . especially the ones behind using the internet to interfere with people's real lives
Just saying something mean is doing that. Pay attention.
Despite it's flaws, the near absolute interpretation of the constitutional right to the freedom of speech by the US Supreme Court
BAHAHAHAHAHAAHAH
Every article in the bill of rights has been superseded by law, such as the U SAP AT RIOT act or NDAA. Every single one. You have no rights. Ferguson proved we do not even have freedom of press, let alone expression or assembly.
"You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
Censorship:
The review of books, movies, etc., to prohibit publication and distribution, usually for reasons of morality or state security.
--Oran's Dictionary of Law
The key difference between censorship and laws related to libel, national security, conspiracy and harassment (including the law being discussed on this page) is that censorship prevents the words from being published. These other laws say that you might get in trouble AFTER publishing certain things. The common phrase used to distinguish the two is "prior restraint". You might ask why the distinction matters. If this law is abused, you might see a news headline like "Journalist arrested for criticizing prime minister". Under a censorship regime, you'd not see any headline at all - the newspaper is censored.
If information is REMOVED after it is published, that might qualify as censorship - it's preventing people from reading it. The fact that it's removed before it's read could mean that the public can't judge whether or not the removal is proper. On the other hand, if someone just gets in trouble afterward for something they published, the government's actions are visible to the public, so it's not technically censorship. Of course just because it's not censorship doesn't mean it's okay. A lot of things are bad , censorship is just one of many bad things.
Will break my bones, but do we really need more legislation?
This is the kind of thing I expect to see from Apple loving Mac heads. Take your iPad and iPhones and your two year sentences and have a great time! Android rules!
there is plenty of case law concerning retroactive censorship, and oodles of unreported stuff as well. An example of this in print is the Yu Gi Oh (or however it's spelled) trading card games, where certain illustrations are omitted and often replaced with stock filler from the original Korean sets and the Western releases. Anecdotally, a flip to retroactive censorship cost my several hours of my life I'll never get back and several hours of stock footage I'll never be able to use after the dizzy bitch who managed to get herself into EVERY SHOT and even videobombed all the actual speakers, walked up to me after the event and said using not polite language that she did NOT want to see her face on the internet. Notwithstanding that it was OUTSIDE on a PUBLIC HIGHWAY at a PUBLIC GATHERING. I would have happily THROTTLED HER.
(the kicker for her is that she said what she said over a live video stream, and after I informed her such she scuttled away like a roach).
Political debates have me rolling my eyes so much I think I got optical whiplash. I should sue. - Foamy The Squirrel
You Mad Bro?..... VERY.
Whew. I was worried there for a moment. We can have imams actually scream for genocide and call for people in Britain to kill infidels and topple the entire nation and that's entirely fine. In fact we can allow people to illegally sneak into the country, illegally get national benefits, commit crimes and do all those other things and THAT's subject to muttering approval. But bitch slapping someone on twitter will get you locked up.
And oh by the way, the gang that raped 1,400 kids over a ten year people with local police protection is still openly out and about.
Under an Ethernet bridge? No, I think they're hiding in VPN tunnels!
Someone high up is obviously butthurt and now they're seeking revenge and we all know what this will lead to. Outsiders trolling knowing UK citizens can be locked up for taking the bait.
It's about friggin time!
after school detention for you too
"The hands that help are better far than lips that pray." - Robert Ingersoll (1833-1899)
oh dear, has you mummy upset you by not allowing you to wear your sisters clothes?
"The hands that help are better far than lips that pray." - Robert Ingersoll (1833-1899)
It would seem the blokes across the pond have lost even more freedom, with no way to counter it.
Your problem is that you are so use to having your rights infringed upon that they are able to easily convince you (or you convince yourself) that it's really okay.
WAKE UP!
Free speech is about haveing the right to express your opinion without fear of retaliation. Nobody has the right to not be offended. If they did, then people would get offended over the color of shirt you wear, or the style of your haircut, or the model of car you have, your religion etc. etc.
This is nothing but censorship, and you in the U.K. better do something about it fast.
Three convicts share a prison cell. Each is asked, "What are you in for?"
Convict 1: Armed robbery.
Others: Pfft.
Convict 2: Murder.
Others: Big deal.
Convict 3: Goatse redirect.
Others: Whoa [while slowly backing away].
In principle I might agree with having the possibility of harsher punishment for online actions such as threats of murder, rape or other forms of violence. However, this is not what most people would call "trolling". Trolling has a less serious but rather simply obnoxious connotation. I wouldn't call someone who threatens murder a "troll".
Of course, if the wording is general enough ("venom" used figuratively here isn't exactly precise) you can justify the legislation by the former (i.e. genuine threats) and later use it to persecute the latter (or rather, against anything the tories don't like to see online). It really seems like a variant of the "but-think-of-the-children" justification for oppression of unwanted opinions or facts.
These sort of things happen in real life too, not just on the Net.
How often have we seen speakers at universities bullied, shouted down, and threatened? Nobody goes to jail for this.
Just as in real life, restrictions on Net speech are too often about gaining advantage or shutting down opponents.
If someone offends you in social media or in an online game, block them and move on. Deny trolls any feedback at all, and they'll move on too. Don't feed the trolls, and they'll get mighty hungry under their bridges.
I'm confused, is it Muslims you hate or gays? Or you hate Muslims because they are all gay (so really just hating gays).
It's really not clear from your text. You sound like one of those street corner crazies that rant endlessly without making any sense.
Care to try again, minus the crazy ranting?
The use of the words "Internet trolls" and "venom" leave a lot to the imagine. If we're talking about people who make death or rape threats, then I can see their point. But when I read "Internet troll" and "venom" I think of teasing, mockery, and people saying "you suck!" None of which should trigger a criminal investigation. I hope the law isn't as ambiguous as all that.
Why do they talk about trolling when they mean harassment?
"we are all atheists about most of the gods that societies have ever believed in. Some of us just go one god further."
This supposed anti-UK/Islam rant is just a cover for you being our rejected girlfriend. You still love us in a scary fixated way, clearly shown by you dedicating so much effort to this post. but we have moved on and found another (and yes, she is a black Muslim); you should try to move on too, and please stop sending all those 'anonymous' gifts, we know they're from you.
- Your *former* boyfriend, the UK.
I jokingly threaten my roommate IRL. Sarcasm cannot be very well interpreted through text. How will they know what is a serious threat or not? Are they just going to censor joking speech?
You accept it on things like fraud, privacy, sexual images, libel, etc.
But because it doesn't allow the freedoms you have currently, you think that this is an abridgement of free speech that you do not like.
This is not the case. It's just that people decide what they will accept as free speech and what they do not accept as it. live with it, stop whinging.
But instead defines the actions.
But then again, you didn't care what the law was, you just wanted to whine.
Whatever about the pros or cons of the leglislation proposed and possible punishment I find that the English seem to be getting more and more insular and nationalistic when it comes to the internet. Their politicians don't seem to get the idea that it is not their internet. It's almost like the empire they didn't have and are somehow miffed at losing control that they never had over it. But, it is the same everywhere. Politicians are clueless arseholes. Not sure if it is the summary that is at fault here, but you can't tar all trolls with the same brush. Surely trolling runs the gamut from playful pisstake to bullying and death threats - from merely annoying to genuinely frightening - but if I post the Golden Girls song here now - am I a criminal? OK, probably yes...I'll have to think about this some more...
http://www.acetonestudio.com
I raped a woman.
What did you do?
I murderd my little sister
Hey new guy! What did you do?
I typed "You mad bro?" to someone.
Holy fuck, man - you're hardcore!
The shepherds did so well protecting the flock that the sheep no longer believed that wolves existed.
As much as I despite heavy-handed government censorship, I despise violent trolls even more. They threatened her publicly with physical harm. They need to go to jail.
And I knew this happens to men often too (the media stories focus more on the women) and I feel the same way about male victims too. If these sonsabitches love rape so much, send them some place where they'll have all the rape they can handle.
Comment removed based on user account deletion
Comment removed based on user account deletion
The NSA-GCHQ "security" system complete with secret courts, rendition and torture are other hallmarks of Mohammedanic Security.
You are lying through all your bodily openings.
If this REALLY were about "cyber bullying" they could make clearly defined definitions about what the "crime" constitutes. Things like "threatens violence", "threatens arson", "threatens rape" and the like. But what they say is "trolling".
You know what Mr GovCriminal ? One man's troll is another man's Legitimate Outrage. When you GovCriminals made the Iraq war happen, it was NOT trolling, but legitimate and justified outrage to call out the crime. 100k Iraqis have died because you criminals in Cheltenham and at SIS and SecS did nothing to stop Blair. You are fucking Criminal Cowards and I am just calling you out.
In my fucking Linguistic System "threatening a bomb detonation" is NOT "trolling". Go on, Progess-tard to help the Modammedanics to destroy our Germanic freedoms !
Did you notice how they whip up the "ISIS" frenzy so that Lockheed can sell more F22 spare parts and repair services ? Mig21s (20 times cheaper to operate) would have sufficed to bomb the crap out of those Mohammedanics.
Legal Aid has nothing whatsoever to do with the payment of judges. It's a system for providing access to the court system for people who can't afford to do it for themselves.
It isn't controlled by local authorities. It's administered by the Legal Aid Agency, which is an agency of central government.
Local authorities have no role in running the court system, which is administered by the Courts and Tribunals Agency (also an agency of the MoJ)
The bulk of police salaries is paid centrally by the Home Office through the Police Fund, which is administered by the local Police & Crime Commissioner. The additional item in your Council Tax bill (technically known as a "precept") is basically a means by which the Commissioner can raise additional funds, subject to limits on his or her ability to increase the precept from year to year.
I can't wait for your private prosecutions against named judges. With your detailed grasp of the operation of the court system, I can't imagine how anything could possibly go wrong.
At the moment, these cases are going to the lower courts in the UK where the case can only be considered if the offence happened within the last six months. Even if reported immediately, cases often cannot proceed because evidence identifying the culprit isnt available within the six month window. Moving to Crown Courts will do away with this restriction, so in theory this proposal makes sense.