Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

In UK, Internet Trolls Could Face Two Years In Jail

Posted by timothy on from the don't-worry-he's-trolling dept.

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.

9 of 489 comments (clear)

  1. Much as I despise trolls by msobkow · · Score: 5, Insightful

    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.
    1. Re:Much as I despise trolls by gweihir · · Score: 4, Insightful

      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!

      --
      Most ACs are not even worth the keystrokes to insult them. Be generically insulted by this and ignored otherwise.
  2. The law comes to Deadwood. by westlake · · Score: 4, Insightful

    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.

    1. Re:The law comes to Deadwood. by stephanruby · · Score: 5, Insightful

      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.

  3. There are limits to freedom of speach by oneiros27 · · Score: 4, Insightful

    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.
  4. It's not censorship or more government control by GrahamCox · · Score: 4, Insightful

    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.

  5. F the UK by sabri · · Score: 4, Insightful

    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.
    1. Re:F the UK by tehcyder · · Score: 5, Insightful
      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.

      --
      To have a right to do a thing is not at all the same as to be right in doing it
    2. Re:F the UK by tobe · · Score: 4, Insightful

      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.