
Internet trolls face up to two years in jail under new laws - k-mcgrady
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-29678989
======
sremani
Criminalizing behavior has its own side-effects that are more problematic than
the problem they are meant to solve. What the system would end is inconsistent
application and execution of the law, until some one figures out to profit off
of it. We have 4 liberal judges in US supreme court who have a tendency to
cite laws of other countries in their opinions, so if Americans think they are
immune, they should rethink again. As corrosive internet trolling is, wait
till Law Enforcement and Criminal Justice system insert themselves as behavior
police, they take a corrosive problem and seem to have expertise in making it
radioactive.

Inserting of words like "terrorism" into such discussion only makes me feel,
this is one more shot across the bow against individual rights.

~~~
ASneakyFox
I think they're talking only about e-death that's which have become more
popular in the recent months. They're not talking about General trolling.

------
dobbsbob
The UK if I recall already has very strict libel laws, where you can accuse
somebody of libel and they have the burden of proof to prove they didn't libel
you, which is why authors leave England for the US like Christopher Hitchens
did. David Irving wasted everybody's time abusing this law
[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Irving_v_Penguin_Books_and_Lips...](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Irving_v_Penguin_Books_and_Lipstadt)

Are these new laws even needed? Between the harsh libel and existing criminal
laws on threatening what difference does this new law make except the slightly
broad definition of "verbally abusive". I can think of a few The Exploited or
Sex Pistols songs that will likely now be deemed verbally abusive towards the
Queen.

------
pmoriarty
_" Under the act, it is an offence to send another person a letter or
electronic communication that contains an indecent or grossly offensive
message, a threat or information which is false and known or believed by the
sender to be false."_

So I guess porn will be made illegal by this law, as will lying (even if the
lie is intended as a joke -- "I'm 300 years old!" or "this sentence is false"
\-- and even if it's such an obvious lie, like the above, that it's
unbelievable).

Who decides what's "indecent" or "grossly offensive"?

Why is the legal system stuck with Victorian-era mores where, for instance,
sexual images or words are "indecent"?

------
grimtrigger
Doesn't the UK already have laws against threats of bodily harm? If so - what
is different about threats made online than offline?

~~~
arethuza
There is the _Malicious Communications Act 1988_ :

[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Malicious_Communications_Act_19...](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Malicious_Communications_Act_1988)

What this actually appears to be doing is extending the maximum prison
sentence under this act from six months to two years.

Note: the above act is for England and Wales only - I wonder if there is
equivalent legislation for NI and here in Scotland.

There also the _Communications Act 2003_ which seems to be UK wide and covers
"Malicious communications":

[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Communications_Act_2003#Malicio...](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Communications_Act_2003#Malicious_communications)

The latter has had a lot of criticism:

[http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2012/apr/27/law-
cri...](http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2012/apr/27/law-criminalisng-
offensive-twitter-use)

------
diminoten
Am I alone in thinking that this is a net detriment to freedom?

The whole point of "freedom of speech" (I know this is in the U.K.) is that
people should be allowed to say things even if other people don't like what's
being said.

~~~
DanBC
"I'd do a lot worse than rape you. I've just got out of prison and would
happily do more time to see you berried [sic]. #10feetunder."

"I will find you, and you don't want to know what I will do when I do. You're
pathetic. Kill yourself. Before I do. #Godie."

Caroline Criado Perez was not complaining about one or two people sending a
few dozens of messages that were a bit mean. She was inundated with thousands
of messages, from many people, threatening sexual violence and death. One man
was sending 50 messages per hour, over about 12 hours. Another woman sent
hundreds of messages. Perez's "crime"? She campaigned to have a woman on
British banknotes after the Bank of England phased out Elizabeth Fry on the £5
- leaving no women on the banknotes.

It's _weird_ that you do not say anything about her freedom to talk without
being subjected to death threats, but that you are concerned that people
offering to rape and murder her might have to stop posting death threats.

~~~
diminoten
She, you, myself, we don't have a freedom to talk without being subjected to
death threats.

It's terrible, awful, and a reflection of the unfathomable depths of depravity
existent within humanity that she was subjected to such horrible treatment,
but as long as she's allowed to say what _she_ wants, these folks are allowed
to say what _they_ want.

I know for absolute certain that this is a truly repugnant idea, letting
people like those who've harassed that poor woman continue, but to stop them
would be declaring a governmental monopoly on the determination of
"appropriate" speech, something which invariably leads to abuse.

I'm not comfortable letting my government tell me what's okay to say, and I
don't think the threat of being threatened with death is enough to get me to
change my mind.

~~~
argonaut
At least in the US, credible death threats made with an intent to intimidate
are not protected free speech (as the Supreme Court has ruled in the past).

~~~
waterlesscloud
Which is why no new legislation is needed- it's already against the law.

There's no need to give authorities more power when they already have all the
power that's necessary.

~~~
diminoten
(Article is from the UK, not the US, and it's about extending the penalty)

~~~
waterlesscloud
The UK authorities also have all the power that's needed as well.

No new power is necessary.

------
adventured
I always find it fascinating that the British can spot America's move toward
fascism and police state behavior, regarding things like spying and the NSA -
but they seem completely incapable of seeing their own accelerating shift
toward fascism.

~~~
tim333
>incapable of seeing their own accelerating shift toward fascism.

If by fascism you mean the kind of thing Hitler and Mussolini did then
preventing trolls issuing rape threats to women is a funny sort of fascism.

~~~
1945795
lol, most stupid person on earth, if you believe Hitler rose to power in any
other way that by promising protection for people, especially children and
women, against threats and 'terrorism'.

~~~
tim333
There's an article here

[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Adolf_Hitler's_rise_to_power](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Adolf_Hitler's_rise_to_power)

Oddly those are not mentioned much

~~~
1945795
this tells you what and when, not why. straight from Hitler: "To prevent this
terror," that's the justification he repeats.

------
carsongross
Prediction: the comments in this thread will once again demonstrate the deep
division between brits and yanks in their commitment to free speech.

~~~
hga
I think that depends. In the US "terroristic threats", what's being cited to
extend the time in prison for violating this law, are I gather generally
illegal, Wikipedia uses Texas as an example:
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Terroristic_threat](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Terroristic_threat)
A little digging found that the penalty is up to 6 months in prison and/or a
$2,000 fine.

I don't know of any American that has a problem with that.

EDITED: arethuza pointed out a Wikipedia article on this law goes which makes
vague (but entirely believable to me claims) that it and its enforcement go
_way_ beyond that. However its one concrete example " _In 2012 an individual
was arrested under the Act for saying that Olympic diver Ton Daley let his
late father down by not winning at medal at the London Olympics._ " is
reported by many sources on the net to actually include a white line
terroristic threat.

ADDED PROLOGUE: To the extent this punishes thought crimes instead of
terroristic threats, it's another reason we rebelled against them, and are
rebelling against our betters who, while not quite yet putting us in jail for
thought crimes, are moving smartly along in creating a totalitarian paradise,
see e.g. the Houston Mayor for the most recent notorious example.

~~~
DanBC
Tom Daley's troll was arrested, and given a harassment caution, for making a
death threat - threatening to drown Daley.

[http://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/2012/07/30/tom-daley-
twitter...](http://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/2012/07/30/tom-daley-twitter-
troll-dead-dad-olympics-london-2012_n_1720838.html)

"i'm going to find you and i'm going to drown you in the pool you cocky tw*t
your a nobody people like you make me sick."

~~~
arethuza
Exactly - that part of the Wikipedia page I linked to should really be updated
to point that out.

