UK's Chief Troll Hunter Targets Doxxing, Virtual Mobbing, and Nasty Images (arstechnica.co.uk)

Some bad news for trollers on the internet who use sophisticated techniques to hurl abuses at others. The UK's top prosecutor has warned that they are introducing new regulations to take these matters carefully and punish offenders with jail time. From an ArsTechnica report:New guidelines have been released by the Crown Prosecution Service to help cops in England and Wales determine whether charges -- under part 2, section 44 of the 2007 Serious Crime Act -- should be brought against people who use social media to encourage others to harass folk online. Over the past four years the CPS has repeatedly tweaked its guidelines on offensive behaviour on social media sites. The latest overhaul, among other things, addresses doxxing, where a person's personal information such as bank details or home address are published online; violence against women and girls such as "baiting" -- which labels someone as sexually promiscuous and can include the use of humiliating photoshopped images; and online harassment campaigns that encourage the use of derogatory hashtags. "Social media can be used to educate, entertain, and enlighten but there are also people who use it to bully, intimidate, and harass," said director of public prosecutions Alison Saunders. "Ignorance is not a defence and perceived anonymity is not an escape. Those who commit these acts, or encourage others to do the same, can and will be prosecuted."

Comments

Selective enforcement

[meta-monkey]

Gotta punish that wrongthink. How much you want to bet they'll vigorously prosecute those who say mean things about immigrants or women, but gosh just never find the time to investigate someone who bashes white people or men...

Re:Selective enforcement

[Pinky's Brain]

http://www.express.co.uk/news/...

"Another girl, going under the pseudonym Lizzie, said: "I know a few girls who have come forward recently and been told they are being racist and I know a lot that won't come forward and to be fair I can't blame them."

This is what is still going on in Rotherham. Government can't or won't fix the atrocious situations occurring because of the utter failure of multiculturalism (it's success is mandated by the holiest laws in existence today, Human Rights, thus for them there can be no alternative). The only way for government to maintain the status quo is to prevent the native population from organizing. This is what this law is all about.

Re:i.e. speech I don't like is bad

[MightyMartian]

What happens if the Internet troll is threatening to rape or kill you?

Believe it or not, it has never been acceptable to threaten bodily harm against people, and "on a computer" is not a defense.

Re:Some people just have nothing better to do...

[lgw]

violence against women and girls such as "baiting" -- which labels someone as sexually promiscuous and can include the use of humiliating photoshopped images;

Wow, so now the definition of "violence" includes mean tweets? Having been through actual violence, from beatings to robbery, I'll take mean tweets any day.

"Violence" is not a thing that can happen through the internet. Oh, sure, you can incite it, but that's already a crime, no special "on a computer" law needed. I can see the point in making "doxxing" explicitly a kind of harassment, but really, don't these people have any real crime to chase? You know, the kind that leaves people with actual injury?

Re:To Mr. Saunders, aka Mr. Fucktard...

[MightyMartian]

Brandenburg v. Ohio gives the police and prosecutors the power to charge someone if their speech leads to imminent danger. In other words, you incite a riot, you'll be charged.

And if you call your neighbor a pedophile because his dog shits on your lawn, he'll likely own your law after the civil trial is over. Ever heard of slander?