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.
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.
Actually with the CFAA in place, Americans are actually under this law, and can be extradited to the merry old UK to spend time dealing with laws in a country they have never been on their soil.
One can ask Kim Dotcom about extradition treaties about being held criminally liable with offenses that are not crimes in a native land, but in some other country.
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.
However the Communcations Act of 2003 is interpreted, is seems. See Wikipedia:
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.
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.
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.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inverted_totalitarianism
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.
Tom Swiss | the infamous tms | my blog
You cannot wash away blood with blood
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.
Ezekiel 23:20
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.
Political debates have me rolling my eyes so much I think I got optical whiplash. I should sue. - Foamy The Squirrel
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.
"I know I will be modded down for this": where's the option '-1, Asking for it'?