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.

Comments

Ahhhh....

[Anonymous Coward]

Liberals in the US are salivating over the day they can do this.

Re:Ahhhh....

[Anonymous Coward]

Liberals in the US are salivating over the day they can do this.

I must really complain about the use of the term "liberal" as the far right democrat as a contrast to the further right republican party. A liberal, would be for the absolution of these laws, in such a manner that it would grant more freedoms or liberties to individuals.

Now, as for my stance on the law, I don't like it from the stance of increasing state power over individuals. At best, laws pertaining to harassment should be all that is needed for such cases. Restraining orders as a start, then go criminal if that is violated. If a person continually harasses others over an extended period of time, then forced psychiatric sessions for them or community service to force them to do something they don't want, without confining them. If there is any lacking aspect to what is already done, it is enforcement. Police are not willing or simply don't care enough to track down individuals outside of high profile cases. Too much happening, and not enough pay to care.

Re:Ahhhh....

[tehcyder]

Except this isn't about protecting people's hurt feelings, it's about punishing people who make criminal threats.

I know libertarians would say we should wait until the threat is carried out and someone is actually raped and killed, but in the real world most of us would prefer to stop it happening in the first place.

Your right to free speech does not include the right to (seriously) threaten me without recourse.

Much as I despise trolls

[msobkow]

As much as I despise trolls, I despise heavy-handed government censorship even more.

Re:Much as I despise trolls

[gweihir]

What, you will not allow a budding totalitarian regime to do what it does best, namely terrorize its population? You must be a troll! Off to jail with you!

Re:Much as I despise trolls

[ewibble]

Agreed, In real life you don't go to jail for 2 year for being rude what makes the internet so special.

Re:Much as I despise trolls

[The Ickle Jones]

As we all know, it's polite to punch people in the face who said something that you don't like. That's how rational people behave.

As far as I'm concerned, you have no business resorting to physical violence except if you're defending yourself or others from physical violence.

Re:Much as I despise trolls

[DahGhostfacedFiddlah]

Where does the freedom to "say what I don't like" end and harassment begin? You wouldn't be able to follow someone around while they're in public, yelling insults, all day, every day. Eventually you'd get a restraining order, and if you violated it, you'd go to jail. At some point "saying what I don't like" becomes more damaging to my quality of life than a punch in the face.

Re:So what qualifies?

[Anonymous Coward]

If only that neutral third party wasn't the government who has a vested interest in seeing certain elements being shut up.

The law comes to Deadwood.

[westlake]

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.

Re:The law comes to Deadwood.

[stephanruby]

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.

No, this law is mostly about drinking and tweeting, and tweeting racist things as a result.

In the UK, the maximum penalty for someone drinking and driving, when a life isn't actually lost as a result, is up 6 months in jail. However, if you happen to be drinking and tweeting (and not driving), then that maximum penalty is multiplied by four.

Free speech cannot survive when speakers are shouted down, bullied and hounded off stage.

Free speech cannot survive the mob.

May be, but not in the tweeting cases prosecuted by the Crown. In each case, the mob sided with the target of the tweets, not the offender. And of course, we're not talking about online school bullying with this particular law. If this law was aimed at stopping school bullying, there would be a provision for underaged offenders, which there isn't. And it would be applied to those school cases, which as of now it hasn't.

...that would not be tolerated off-line in the name of free speech

That's a nice idea, but you haven't spend any time around drunk people. When a drunk person gets belligerent, you throw them out of the premises, or if you're not the owner of the premises, you walk away from them. Throwing them in jail is the last possible resort, only to be used, when that person is a danger to others, or a danger to himself (like when he or she is hitting other people, or trying to drive a car).

Throwing trolls in jail isn't going to solve the problem of trolls. For one thing, there will still be people trolling from outside the UK (they will do so just because they can, as a taunt against the British authorities). And for a second thing, people aren't going to stop drinking and tweeting, even inside the UK, so the angry judges and politicians are likely to be even more frustrated with the results and come up with even more draconian measures.

Re:The law comes to Deadwood.

[CanHasDIY]

I think it qualifies as free speech. But a threat that seems likely to be acted upon may require an investigation to see if it's going to be acted upon.

Hence the difference between online and offline speech - "I'm going to rape your pets to death" is far more actionable when you're standing in front of the person's house as opposed to some maternal basement half a world away.

There are limits to freedom of speach

[oneiros27]

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!)

It's not censorship or more government control

[GrahamCox]

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.

F the UK

[sabri]

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".

Re:F the UK

[tehcyder]

Holding people responsible for making threats of death and rape is indeed an infringement on free speech, in the same way that locking someone in prison for murder is an infringement of their right to liberty.

Freedom of speech has never meant freedom from its consequences, and the fact that it's on the internet is entirely irrelevant.

Re:F the UK

[tobe]

Sadly there's an element of our society that thinks it's funny and/or acceptable to threaten violence and specifically rape on people for simply expressing their views. A recent case where a woman was bombarded with these kind of threats for simply campaigning to keep a notable female on at least one of our bank notes comes to mind. The general population does not think this is an acceptable price to pay for free speech, hence legislation. I don't think you'll find many dissenting voices.

Re:F the UK

[Rei]

I agree. If by "poisoning" they mean people making insolts or dispatching flying penises in Second Life or stuff like that, then it's a bill too far. But if by "poisoning" they mean launching flickering images on an epilepsy forum to try to cause seizures, "doxxing", making legitimate rape and murder threats, etc, then I think it's absolutely justified. All too often is there the assumption that what happens online doesn't warrant enforcement, even if it's something that crosses over into the real world.

Everyone has the right to free speech, but it ceases being free speech when it crosses certain bounds (shouting fire in a crowded theatre, incitement to violence, solicitation of criminal activity, etc). All of these cases are nuanced and require careful balance, but what they should not be is ignored.