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!
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.
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.
That has nothing to do with the subject here...or am I missing something?
Police are searching for them under an old Ethernet bridge.
AC has no balls, either.
It little behooves the best of us to comment on the rest of us.
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.
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.
Lefties want to copy the Tories? - Can I have some of what you're smoking?
And did you exchange a walk on part in the war for a lead role in a cage? - Pink Floyd.
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.
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.
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)
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 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."
The CFAA mostly wouldn't apply. Though I imagine things like terroristic threats are a penalty in the USA and would allow for potential extradition.
England called. You're in big trouble now.
"absolution"
You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means.
When Fascism comes to America, it will call itself Anti-Fascism, and tell you to give up your guns.
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.
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?" ...
Which country does have free speech? Do tell, if you know of any.
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!
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.
Yet it is right wing governments bringing in these laws. My right wing government loves increasing jail sentences, creating new crimes, expanding spying on their own citizens and the libertarian part stays quiet as long as their are tax cuts promised and certain parts of government are shrunk.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inverted_totalitarianism
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!
No, laws that violate the US first amendment can't result in extradiction to another country. You can be arrested if you go those countries voluntarily, but you'd need to be charged first and it's not likely foreign nationals would be charged en-masse. This is an election year ploy to appease the hypersensitive voters in the UK.
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 !!!
got 3200+ more for you: that they've admitted to, is the number of children abducted from foreign nationals and subsequently trafficked between 2007-2012.
This is the UK I'm talking about, not some Middle East shithole.
I bullshit you not.
Political debates have me rolling my eyes so much I think I got optical whiplash. I should sue. - Foamy The Squirrel
under sections 3, 4 and 4a of the public order act 1986? Fucking thousands.
Political debates have me rolling my eyes so much I think I got optical whiplash. I should sue. - Foamy The Squirrel
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.
It's not too bad here, as long as you don't offend our corporate overlords. Especially *looks around nevously* The Mouse. A person does not fuck with The Mouse! What was that? They're here! They know! ... Ah no it was just a raccoon.
I'm trying to teach myself to set people on fire with my mind... Is it hot in here?
[......] 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.
I doubt it. The US has a policy of not extraditing for doing things that are protected by the US constitution. This would be one of those things.
Granted, they have on a few occasions gone against this policy, but all of those occasions were against immigrants who were already in violation of some other law in the US and were already in the process of getting deported anyways, so even if they hadn't broken the law in their country they were still going to be sent there.
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
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]
both sides want to cut down on the little people complaining about being governed...which this just happens to cover...
Sleep your way to a whiter smile...date a dentist!
Except this is a reference to the provisions in the malicious communications act 2003.
I think you mean the Communications Act 2003 section 127. The Malicious Communications Act was 1988 which was partly superceded by S.127.
Some cases prosecuted under S.127:
Paul Chambers (conviction overturned on appeal)
2011 riots (HUNDREDS of summary convictions following this incident. David Glyn Jones received a four month sentence for a single message on Facebook found to have incited a breach of the peace)
Azhar Ahmed (also a single Facebook post)
Frank Zimmerman (6 months suspended for two years for sending threatening emails to an MP)
Joshua Cryer (trolled soccer player Stan Collymore)
John Kerlen (jailed over tweets, overturned on appeal but handed a restraining order)
Daniel Thomas (arrested but not prosecuted under Section 127 over tweets)
Dale Cregan fanpage (IIRC the guy who put this up on Facebook was found guilty under S.127 and jailed for six months)
Matthew Woods (3 months in a YOI for explicit Fcebook posts regarding April Jones and Madeline McCann)
Sam Busby (two months curfew for Facebook posts about April Jones)
Caroline Criado-Perez (R v Sorley & Nimmo, concerning Twitter abuse)
Stella Creasy (R v Nunn, Twitter abuse)
Jordan Barrack (drew a picture of a cock on a picture of a police officer, posted it to Facebook earning him a £400 compensation order and further ordered to serve out 12 months community service)
Between 2003-07-25 and 2011-12-31 there had been 5316 people found guilty at magistrates courts in England and Wales of offences under section 127. These figures will include obscene telephone calls and text messages as well as internet-based communications. (source: Hansard)
Political debates have me rolling my eyes so much I think I got optical whiplash. I should sue. - Foamy The Squirrel
addendum: as a result of the sheer number of summary prosecutions following the 2011 riots, a significant number of cases were NOT RECORDED having been disposed of in very short order (revolving door chambers and average four minutes per case).
Political debates have me rolling my eyes so much I think I got optical whiplash. I should sue. - Foamy The Squirrel
its not for that childish slashdot troll, its for the trolls that threaten death and rape etc, a bit like not being allowed to shout "Fire!" or "Bomb!" in a theatre as a joke as there is no way of knowing if its true. Jail time might be a little much for a first offence but front page exposure of the exposed troll might be a start
"The hands that help are better far than lips that pray." - Robert Ingersoll (1833-1899)
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*
shhhh... don't use facts to destroy his small minded views or lack of understanding
"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!
Playing games.
Being bored is not an excuse to make someones life miserable.
If you need to hurt others to satisfy your needs, your a sadist.
We should not just accept that because it's gonna happen anyway.
Thank you, Bradley Manning, Edward Snowden and so many others, for courageously defending humanity, my freedom and more!
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)
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.
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.'"
This new bill only need extend existing law to internet communication. It's already illegal to threaten or stalk someone.
Though I agree, the only problem is that things like this have a habit of being extended and changed under Common Law, over time, into something completely different to the original intention of those drafting the bill.
What you say is true . . . . . now. What about in a few years? Once the noose is in place around your neck, it only gets tighter. That's the way government evolves over time.
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?
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
I would imagine the answer is zero, but am happy to be corrected.
To have a right to do a thing is not at all the same as to be right in doing it
Right but that wasn't the AC's question was it? The question was how many had received 6 month sentences.
The answer is very few, of the thousands you cite, most didn't even get jail sentences, and even fewer again got a full 6 months.
Part the problem we have with the act though is the use of magistrates in the first place. Magistrates are kangaroo courts really, untrained busy bodies handing down judgements based on their own social hangups.
Which is a wider problem, because magistrates sit over many other cases.
Ironically, the proposal in TFA might actually therefore be an improvement - more cases being passed up to actual real courts with trained professionals overseeing the cases rather than magistrate chimps wont likely me more and longer jail sentences, it'll just mean more cases being thrown out because they're so fucking stupid in the first place.
A Libertarian will be the ones trying to remove such laws.
Which is why, although I admire libertarian economics, I'm not libertarian myself. I know people who have had their livelihood destroyed by organized cyberbullying built around pure hate for the "wrong" opinions.
For a libertarian, a billionaire that decided to spend millions in a wide multi-front campaign to utterly destroy the life of someone, everyone they love, and their friends and friends of friends, using as many indirect proxies as possible, would be an entirely fine thing provided he didn't use direct violence, only speech.
That's not how a healthy society is build, that's ideology. Libertarians, liberals and conservatives, are all of them, each in his own peculiar way, disconnected from the real world. And we all suffer due to this.
Conservatism: (n.) love of the existing evils. Liberalism: (n.) desire to substitute new evils for the existing ones.
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.
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.
To have a right to do a thing is not at all the same as to be right in doing it
Um, this law is wholly illiberal, why would liberals ever want this? Anyone wanting this is not liberal by definition.
This is a classic conservative type proposition, not surprisingly, being put forth by the UK's Conservative party who sit on the centre-right (with a handful of far-right elements like Peter Bone).
I suspect what you really mean is "People I don't like will love this law", but whoever those people are, I assure you they're not liberals by the very fact that this law change goes against liberalism.
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.
Meh. This definition could basically describe just about any political party in the U.S. -- it just depends on how you define "freedom" and "democracy."
And yes, they are often at odds with each other. Majority rule ("democracy") often votes to take away or restrict freedom, especially from minority viewpoints.
If your definition of "freedom" includes things like abortion access and gay marriage (as the Democratic Party), you get to override democratic votes (even ballot initiatives voted on directly by voters) to ensure those freedoms. If your definition of "freedom" involves lots of guns (as the Republican Party), you similarly get to override legislation passed by democratic representatives to protect that freedom.
Often, the idea of "rights" are invoked to justify overriding democracy, but often (though not always) a "right" involves preserving someone's freedom at the expense of restricting someone else. Obviously this is often necessary -- for example, my freedom to go around committing murder is generally restricted to special circumstances, like times of war, because otherwise it would violate the freedom and rights of others to live.
To the issue at hand: "liberal" in the U.S. is mostly associated with Democrats, who are relatively far from the classical liberalism that your definition is mostly associated with. Classical liberalism was associated with figures from John Locke to Adam Smith, and its closest analogue in the U.S. today is something akin to libertarianism (as GP argued), though libertarianism isn't quite like classical liberalism in some ways. (That distinction is for another post.)
Democrats, on the other hand, are social liberals, who generally seem to believe that minority viewpoints and people need to protected from the tyranny of the majority in a democracy. Rather than adopting classical liberalism's philosophy that the free market and free association will just make things work out, they moved away from classical liberalism to argue for child labor laws, minimum wage laws, etc., which go against traditional free association ideals.
In recent years, as GP argues, U.S. "liberals" (i.e., mostly Democrats) have gone further in these protections for those with less power. Thus, they tend to be the most vocal proponents of affirmative action, anti-hate speech laws, harassment laws, etc.
Thus, GP was essentially correct for the U.S. at least: Liberals (in the U.S.) ARE the first to demand that everyone else "walk on egg shells when their feelings get hurt." Democrats believe they have good reasons to invoke these protections, since restricting speech and actions in these ways leads -- to them -- to a more fair and equitable society which protects those who are oppressed.
But all of this is quite far from the basic "freedom and democracy" as defined by classical liberalism in the 18th century. I'm not saying it's bad, or even arguing for any particular party or perspective. I'm just saying that this basic definition of "liberalism" is so vague that almost anyone co-opts it these days in the U.S.
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)
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.
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."
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.
Some libertarians might say that, but many libertarians including Rothbardians describe coercive behavior as "force or the threat of force." What constitutes a threat is subjective in many cases because people have different sensitivities. I am reasonably certain that the US Government is realistically threatening force against me if I don't pay my taxes, because I know they've used force against others. A guy in a bar who threatens to kick my ass is a lot less clear as to follow-through, and I'd probably have to take it on a case-by-case basis. A guy on /. who threatens me is probably full of shit, but if he and his buddies are starting to consistently harass me online so as to interfere with my reasonable use of my online person, they're probably over the line.
... or Shouting Ebola?
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
"But why would they want to kill their own customers?"
"Why do madmen do anything? They're bloody madmen, that's why!" -Arcanum
Political debate gets a lot easier when you pretend your opponents do not have any motives besides being card carrying villains. This also has the added benefits of not needing to think your own politics or their consequences, after all since your opponent is evil you are by definition good. Operation Barbarossa? What's that?
Basically, the OP was simply confirming their tribal identity as one of the Good Guys, and happened to belong to the tribe called "conservatives". Since the issue at hand is not one of the flag issues - issues used for defining the tribe's identity - they were free to acknowledge the proposal as evil and attribute it to the other tribe ("liberals"). Had this been one of those issues, for example gay rights, we'd been treated to a convoluted logic to "prove" that their tribe was correct and the other evil.
This kind of behaviour is typical for political fringes, where it serves to help the members keep their flame going, but since the US only has two parties it gets injected straight to the core of the nation's political life, the result being increasing instability.
Forget magic. Any technology distinguishable from divine power is insufficiently advanced.
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.
Comment removed based on user account deletion
Comment removed based on user account deletion
Free speech is about haveing the right to express your opinion without fear of retaliation
Express away, you overprivileged cunt with an overinflated sense of self-worth. You are the scum of the earth and deserve nothing less than to be horribly beaten and raped by a gang of spanner-wielding bikers.
Here's the thing. Free speech does not trump the other basic principle I mention, to do as you please as long as it does not harm others. There is no doubt that in some cases, your free speech can harm others. And I mean harm, not just offend. I agree about not having the right not to be offended, but it's not black-and-white. And if what I wrote above did have some small effect on you, then think about that. Imagine if you were on the receiving end of something like that day in, day out and it really affected you? Some people might not be as robust as you.
Just have a little compassion. Is it really too much to ask?
Thankfully in the UK "liberals" are something all parties try and claim to be like a badge of honour, rather than a target of hate.
None of them actually are of course, but at least it's something they all aspire to be rather than aspire to hate.
Well, the exception being the Tory far right and other far right parties like UKIP of course who are basically the UK's answer to the tea party.
Now if only we had an actual liberal party that had any hope of getting into power, then stuff like this would be history.
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.