Trolling

[Greenback]

Things have been improving recently on the legal front . There have been increasing numbers of prosecutions for comments and threats made on twitter and Facebook etc and I think the way things are going it is only going to increase . I can only imagine the look of shock on some of the perpetrators faces when the police knock on their door.

Things have improved, but the message doesn't seem to be getting through!

I do think it is important that social media is policed and people are held to account for their words on their , but I am also worried what impeding on the freedom of speech on the internet could do to it in general . I mean whilst I do think something should be done about people who threaten or harass others over the internet . I dont have a problem with websites like sickipedia - because with sickipedia I would actually have to go out and search for the offensive material . Whereas with twitter and facebook it is broadcast for the world to see .

Freedom of speech on the internet should be subject to the same rules as freedom of speech in general. The internet is not a special place that should be exempt from the laws of harrassment, threatening behaviour, incitement to violence or anything else.

I think social media is responsible for a bit of a deterioration in the standards of current affairs discussion . Lets take the recent debacle involving the ill worded remarks of Judy Finnigan . It used to be if you wanted to issue a rebuttal to what Judy has said you would have had to have well worded it in order for your letter or comment to end up published in a newspaper. However now all you have to do in order to display your disagreement with what Judy has said is log onto facebook or twitter and threaten to rape or kill her or her daughter .

I agree, and I think that is one of the saddest and most damaging of the negative things about social media.

How sick have we become as a society where a minority of people seem to think it's OK to do these things just because thy take issue with a poorly expressed opinion?

 

[fowler9]

I really don't quite agree either way. I don't use Twitter because it just doesn't interest me. On Facebook my security is set so that anyone who isn't a "friend" can't post anything on my wall. If anyone who is a friend posts something I don't like I can discuss it with them or delete them. If I say something a "friend" doesn't like they can do the same. I don't get the problem either way.

 

[Greenback]

The problem is the amount of hatred that finds its way on to all social media. It doesn't affect me directly either but that doesn't mean it doesn't exist.

 

[MidnightFlyer]

I really don't quite agree either way. I don't use Twitter because it just doesn't interest me. On Facebook my security is set so that anyone who isn't a "friend" can't post anything on my wall. If anyone who is a friend posts something I don't like I can discuss it with them or delete them. If I say something a "friend" doesn't like they can do the same. I don't get the problem either way.

Absolutely brilliant post right here ^

 

[fowler9]

The problem is the amount of hatred that finds its way on to all social media. It doesn't affect me directly either but that doesn't mean it doesn't exist.

I think it is all down to educating people, especially young people. If you have a Facebook or Twitter account and everyone commenting on it is basically abusing you then review your security settings, review who you are friends with or review your opinions. Internet social media actually makes it very easy to stop bullying etc. At least via the medium of social media. I do not have to listen to anything I don't want to hear on it.

 

[muz379]

Things have improved, but the message doesn't seem to be getting through!

Im not entirely sure about this Ive not seen the stats or anything like that .

My perception is that there is still a lot of trolling that would and should fall foul of the law but one of the problems is policing resources - Id much rather the police investigated an actual reported rape than someone threatening someone with rape over twitter . Of course in an ideal world the police would have resources to deal with both .

Freedom of speech on the internet should be subject to the same rules as freedom of speech in general. The internet is not a special place that should be exempt from the laws of harrassment, threatening behaviour, incitement to violence or anything else.

I agree that threats , incitement and harassment should and are all illegal online just as they are in spoken form .

What I dont think is that people that say things that are offensive in no general or targeted way should be punished legally . I know people do hold views that should be deplored but the problem with going down the out and out censorship route is that you are then making precedent for punishing someone for saying something that is offensive but the boundaries of what could be offensive are subject to a great deal or argument and interpretation .

Of course if someone posts offensive comments in a targeted way ,or includes prejudicial comments in inciting or harassing posts then they should be illegal . But merely because of their targeted or inciting manner not because they are "offensive"

I agree, and I think that is one of the saddest and most damaging of the negative things about social media.

How sick have we become as a society where a minority of people seem to think it's OK to do these things just because thy take issue with a poorly expressed opinion?

it is quite bad how a minority feel the need to stoop as low as threatening death/rape or serious bodily harm to people over things that really should be discussed in a political manner . I mean people threaten these things to people over things as simple as political affiliation

Mind you in my mind its nothing as bad as the horrific violence that a majority are hell bent on waging against each other in the name of Football .

 

[MidnightFlyer]

I think it is all down to educating people, especially young people. If you have a Facebook or Twitter account and everyone commenting on it is basically abusing you then review your security settings, review who you are friends with or review your opinions. Internet social media actually makes it very easy to stop bullying etc. At least via the medium of social media. I do not have to listen to anything I don't want to hear on it.

Yet another excellent point. I think the same of bullying in real life: kids quite rightly get taught that it's wrong to do so and all that carry on, but the fundamental problem with such an approach is that bullying will never cease to exist; so when some poor child does get grief they have no idea what to do (the teachers at my school couldn't have cared less if they tried, they just sent you to the people who taught bullying was wrong and it repeated ad infinitum). You don't get told how to defend yourself, to stand your own ground or how to remove the problem. Same thing on social media - the easiest thing to do is not go 'OMG ban it, it's the reincarnation of Satan', it's to either block them or defend yourself or if the threat is serious enough, inform authorities.

 

[fowler9]

Im not entirely sure about this Ive not seen the stats or anything like that .

My perception is that there is still a lot of trolling that would and should fall foul of the law but one of the problems is policing resources - Id much rather the police investigated an actual reported rape than someone threatening someone with rape over twitter . Of course in an ideal world the police would have resources to deal with both .

I agree that threats , incitement and harassment should and are all illegal online just as they are in spoken form .

What I dont think is that people that say things that are offensive in no general or targeted way should be punished legally . I know people do hold views that should be deplored but the problem with going down the out and out censorship route is that you are then making precedent for punishing someone for saying something that is offensive but the boundaries of what could be offensive are subject to a great deal or argument and interpretation .

Of course if someone posts offensive comments in a targeted way ,or includes prejudicial comments in inciting or harassing posts then they should be illegal . But merely because of their targeted or inciting manner not because they are "offensive"


it is quite bad how a minority feel the need to stoop as low as threatening death/rape or serious bodily harm to people over things that really should be discussed in a political manner . I mean people threaten these things to people over things as simple as political affiliation

Mind you in my mind its nothing as bad as the horrific violence that a majority are hell bent on waging against each other in the name of Football .

Honestly apart from adverts and things that pop up in Google searches you do not have to see anything on the Internet you do not want to see. This forum has rules. I have had comments deleted rightly so for various reasons.

Your last paragraph I find odd given religious and political violence going on around the world. Is football related violence really the worst you can think of in the world?

 

[Greenback]

I think it is all down to educating people, especially young people. If you have a Facebook or Twitter account and everyone commenting on it is basically abusing you then review your security settings, review who you are friends with or review your opinions. Internet social media actually makes it very easy to stop bullying etc. At least via the medium of social media. I do not have to listen to anything I don't want to hear on it.

You make a good point. Educating young people would be a great help, but I think it has to go hand in hand with cracking down on those who peddle hate.

Im not entirely sure about this Ive not seen the stats or anything like that .

My perception is that there is still a lot of trolling that would and should fall foul of the law but one of the problems is policing resources - Id much rather the police investigated an actual reported rape than someone threatening someone with rape over twitter . Of course in an ideal world the police would have resources to deal with both .

I think that's been part of the trouble in the past, cyber bullying, death threats and the like have never been treated as seriously as 'real' crime, and it's only relatively recently that it's become apparent how much harm is being done.

Resources are always going to be a problem, which is why I think that the owners of these sites need to be much more proactive than they have been.

I agree that threats , incitement and harassment should and are all illegal online just as they are in spoken form .

What I dont think is that people that say things that are offensive in no general or targeted way should be punished legally . I know people do hold views that should be deplored but the problem with going down the out and out censorship route is that you are then making precedent for punishing someone for saying something that is offensive but the boundaries of what could be offensive are subject to a great deal or argument and interpretation .

Of course if someone posts offensive comments in a targeted way ,or includes prejudicial comments in inciting or harassing posts then they should be illegal . But merely because of their targeted or inciting manner not because they are "offensive"

Yes, I agree by and large.

Yet another excellent point. I think the same of bullying in real life: kids quite rightly get taught that it's wrong to do so and all that carry on, but the fundamental problem with such an approach is that bullying will never cease to exist; so when some poor child does get grief they have no idea what to do (the teachers at my school couldn't have cared less if they tried, they just sent you to the people who taught bullying was wrong and it repeated ad infinitum). You don't get told how to defend yourself, to stand your own ground or how to remove the problem. Same thing on social media - the easiest thing to do is not go 'OMG ban it, it's the reincarnation of Satan', it's to either block them or defend yourself or if the threat is serious enough, inform authorities.

But there is little point in the last option if nothing is ever done about it ie the authorities act in the same way as the teachers you mention. This is why a singe pronged approach is, in my view, ineffective.

Honestly apart from adverts and things that pop up in Google searches you do not have to see anything on the Internet you do not want to see. This forum has rules. I have had comments deleted rightly so for various reasons.

My only question is whether some people have the necessary judgement, experience and maturity to know when to stop reading and take action. Given that the protagonists seem to be lacking in these areas, it's reasonable to assume that the same can be said for at least of those on the receiving end.

I do sometimes wish that Facebook and Twitter enforced their rules (assuming they have them) in a more efficient manner!

Your last paragraph I find odd given religious and political violence going on around the world. Is football related violence really the worst you can think of in the world?

I must admit that the same thought crossed my mind!

 

[muz379]

Greenback - I completely agree those that run these sites should provide resources to counter the effects of trolls . Using my football club example , if I was a major premier league football club I would be expected to contribute hundreds of thousands to the policing of the stadium and surrounding areas on match days . Why should twitter , facebook etc be exempt from this .

Honestly apart from adverts and things that pop up in Google searches you do not have to see anything on the Internet you do not want to see. This forum has rules. I have had comments deleted rightly so for various reasons.

Your last paragraph I find odd given religious and political violence going on around the world. Is football related violence really the worst you can think of in the world?

I agree with you that a lot of the content on the internet is voluntarily consumed . that's why I said I have no issues with sites like sickipedia . Whilst I dont really like some of the content posted on there , if I dont wish to see it then I dont have to go on that site . But when its trolling on twitter of a celebrity of sorts or trolling about a current contentious issue in the news using hash tags so lots of people are quiet likely to see your tweet including the intended reception of your threat/abuse/harassment is that not slightly different ? Its in a directed way at a specific person and its likely that its going to be to a huge audience .

Of course you can delete the threatening/harassing/abusive/offensive tweets but has the damage and wrong already been done ? . Thats like somebody stealing my car but then bringing it back to me . Its not suddenly all ok just because things are returned to normal

Of course with inciting material it doesn't matter if I have a completely voluntary choice to access the material because as long as the material is communicated to the intended recipient/recipients then the damage is done

Oh no of course I can think of much worse motivations for violence worldwide . However I was trying to pick another scenario when the reason behind the violence seems trivial . like the trivial reasons people send threatening messages on social media .
Some could argue that political violence/terrorism has a much more arguably serious and real reason behind it . Whereas attacking people on twitter because of their support of a certain political party and attacking someone in person because they are wearing a blue shirt rather than a red one is equally as silly a reason to engage in violence .

 

[fowler9]

Greenback - I completely agree those that run these sites should provide resources to counter the effects of trolls . Using my football club example , if I was a major premier league football club I would be expected to contribute hundreds of thousands to the policing of the stadium and surrounding areas on match days . Why should twitter , facebook etc be exempt from this .


I agree with you that a lot of the content on the internet is voluntarily consumed . that's why I said I have no issues with sites like sickipedia . Whilst I dont really like some of the content posted on there , if I dont wish to see it then I dont have to go on that site . But when its trolling on twitter of a celebrity of sorts or trolling about a current contentious issue in the news using hash tags so lots of people are quiet likely to see your tweet including the intended reception of your threat/abuse/harassment is that not slightly different ? Its in a directed way at a specific person and its likely that its going to be to a huge audience .

Of course you can delete the threatening/harassing/abusive/offensive tweets but has the damage and wrong already been done ? . Thats like somebody stealing my car but then bringing it back to me . Its not suddenly all ok just because things are returned to normal

Of course with inciting material it doesn't matter if I have a completely voluntary choice to access the material because as long as the material is communicated to the intended recipient/recipients then the damage is done

Oh no of course I can think of much worse motivations for violence worldwide . However I was trying to pick another scenario when the reason behind the violence seems trivial . like the trivial reasons people send threatening messages on social media .
Some could argue that political violence/terrorism has a much more arguably serious and real reason behind it . Whereas attacking people on twitter because of their support of a certain political party and attacking someone in person because they are wearing a blue shirt rather than a red one is equally as silly a reason to engage in violence .

I still don't agree with you. No matter how famous or otherwise you are you don't need to provide people with access to contact you directly. The people who come out with such hateful stuff have always existed, it is nothing new. Any such damage could be done to people by just walking down the street and having it said to them. It has got nothing at all to do with someone stealing your car and bringing it back and you really are fudging the issue there.

Going back to football I find religious violence far worse as an atheist. I hate football violence but it is rare and at least the teams provably exist. People cutting off other peoples heads in the name of something they can't prove or blowing up shopping centres etc. for the same reason seems to me on a completely different level to a few footy hooligans having a fight. If you think there is any similarity then this is going to be hard to discuss.

You could easily accuse me of trolling for what I just said about religion, perhaps try and have it deleted. It is what I strongly believe and what the news would in all honesty seem to back up. Like closing down social media you will have just closed down debate and in my opinion no good can come of that. What good can possibly come of stopping people from saying what they want to say when you can easily not listen to me. I hasten to add that I have not told you what is right, I have spoken about what I believe.

 

[muz379]

I still don't agree with you. No matter how famous or otherwise you are you don't need to provide people with access to contact you directly. The people who come out with such hateful stuff have always existed, it is nothing new. Any such damage could be done to people by just walking down the street and having it said to them. It has got nothing at all to do with someone stealing your car and bringing it back and you really are fudging the issue there.

Going back to football I find religious violence far worse as an atheist. I hate football violence but it is rare and at least the teams exist. People cutting off other peoples heads in the name of something they can't prove or blowing up shopping centres etc. for the same reason seems to me on a completely different level to a few footy hooligans having a fight. If you think there is any similarity then this is going to be hard to discuss.

But do you also not have a right as a celebrity (indeed the same as a normal person ) to have a presence on social media without being abused just like you have the right to walk down the street or enjoy your property without being harassed , abused or subject to threats ,

Of course someone could harass someone or make a threat or abusive comment to someone in person in the street or by stalking them and the law is well equipped to deal with that .

Why should that be any different if a celebrity or any other person is exercising their right to have a twitter account and someone keeps posting threats to rape or kill them ? All im saying is anybody that says something on twitter or Facebook that they would be criminalised for saying in person should also be criminal online . The law pretty much backs that up .

Im not fudging the issue . If I understand things correctly you are saying its not a problem that celebrities receive death or rape threats online because they an always block the person from posting those comments or sending those messages and its only online . But that's essentially saying that because the comment can be deleted by the recipient and the sender blocked there is no harm done . Same as if your car is returned there is no harm done . But as we all know that invasion of your property is still left even with the car received . Same as the shock that might be felt by recieving a death or a rape threat online .

I do apologize If I have misunderstood what you are saying .

What about if "trolls" spam a celebs twitter feed with their home address or other confidential information they might not want in the public domain ? would this not constitute a wrong in your eyes ?

Im not saying someone going onto the twitter feed of some singer and saying - "your a crap singer" should be criminalised .
But I certainly do think that someone going onto anybodies twitter feed and saying "im going to rape/kill you/your daughter/your family " should be criminalized, especially if it is in a targeted and harassing manner with multiple abusive messages .

As for religious violence . I agree wholeheartedly that I find religious violence far worse than football violence merely because of the often vulgar nature of the acts carried out usually indiscriminately against innocent people .whereas football violence is usually just a fight between willing participants .

But the point that I was trying to make which I think you have missed is that I assimilate some of the reasons people make threats/harass people over the twitter are for trivial reasons . The same as the trivial reasons football hooligans are fighting each other .

With religious violence atheist or not there is always going to be the argument as to the reasoning behind it . Yes as an atheist I agree it seems mad to blow up a shopping center full of innocents over something you cant prove . But to someone who has been tortured or has been taught to believe that their upbringing in a war torn country is at the hands of a western foreign policy the acts will seem legitimate . This however is a subject for a separate thread I was just stating there are far more complex reasons for religious violence whereas football violence is for relatively simple reasons .

 

[fowler9]

As an addition I will agree that there is a crossover between sectarianism and football support which to me is as mad as football violence in general.

 

[muz379]

You could easily accuse me of trolling for what I just said about religion, perhaps try and have it deleted. It is what I strongly believe and what the news would in all honesty seem to back up. Like closing down social media you will have just closed down debate and in my opinion no good can come of that. What good can possibly come of stopping people from saying what they want to say when you can easily not listen to me. I hasten to add that I have not told you what is right, I have spoken about what I believe.

But what you have done is not what I understand trolling to be because you have provided reasoning behind your argument

What a troll response would have been would have been to say

"wtf you think football violence is worse than terrorist scum , im going to rape/ i hope someone rapes you/your dog/your daughter that wud be well funny lulz "

"wtf are u mad do you really think football violence is trivial im going to kill your family "

"look everyone he thinks terrorism is ok , here is his address xxxxxxx lets all show him some real terrorism"

And those are comments that IMO both display a deterioration in the art of debate as well as should be illegal just because they are so outrageous and threatening .


I get your argument , I myself have people as "friends" on facebook who will post the ridiculous racist/bigoted daily mail style posts that circulate sometimes . And I like you will usually point out to them the flaws in their reasoning , however not everyone is as aware/articulate or willing to question things as you and I hence why these posts manage to circulate and some of them will no doubt be convinced into acting a certain way or holding a certain belief because of things posted on facebook . Think if they are swayed by a poorly worded daily mail esque posting what an inciting post could do to your beliefs . Or worse what seeing someone being allowed to harass or threaten another person could do to that persons behavior .


Im not saying we should stop people saying what they should want , or that we should shut down social media . What I am saying is just like the freedom of speech in public there should be limits to what you can say online . Would I be allowed to preach outside a supermarket about cutting off muslims heads ? no . Should I be allowed to make comments like that on twitter or facebook then ?

 

[fowler9]

But do you also not have a right as a celebrity (indeed the same as a normal person ) to have a presence on social media without being abused just like you have the right to walk down the street or enjoy your property without being harassed , abused or subject to threats ,

Of course someone could harass someone or make a threat or abusive comment to someone in person in the street or by stalking them and the law is well equipped to deal with that .

Why should that be any different if a celebrity or any other person is exercising their right to have a twitter account and someone keeps posting threats to rape or kill them ? All im saying is anybody that says something on twitter or Facebook that they would be criminalised for saying in person should also be criminal online . The law pretty much backs that up .

Im not fudging the issue . If I understand things correctly you are saying its not a problem that celebrities receive death or rape threats online because they an always block the person from posting those comments or sending those messages and its only online . But that's essentially saying that because the comment can be deleted by the recipient and the sender blocked there is no harm done . Same as if your car is returned there is no harm done . But as we all know that invasion of your property is still left even with the car received . Same as the shock that might be felt by recieving a death or a rape threat online .

I do apologize If I have misunderstood what you are saying .

What about if "trolls" spam a celebs twitter feed with their home address or other confidential information they might not want in the public domain ? would this not constitute a wrong in your eyes ?

Im not saying someone going onto the twitter feed of some singer and saying - "your a crap singer" should be criminalised .
But I certainly do think that someone going onto anybodies twitter feed and saying "im going to rape/kill you/your daughter/your family " should be criminalized, especially if it is in a targeted and harassing manner with multiple abusive messages .

As for religious violence . I agree wholeheartedly that I find religious violence far worse than football violence merely because of the often vulgar nature of the acts carried out usually indiscriminately against innocent people .whereas football violence is usually just a fight between willing participants .

But the point that I was trying to make which I think you have missed is that I assimilate some of the reasons people make threats/harass people over the twitter are for trivial reasons . The same as the trivial reasons football hooligans are fighting each other .

With religious violence atheist or not there is always going to be the argument as to the reasoning behind it . Yes as an atheist I agree it seems mad to blow up a shopping center full of innocents over something you cant prove . But to someone who has been tortured or has been taught to believe that their upbringing in a war torn country is at the hands of a western foreign policy the acts will seem legitimate . This however is a subject for a separate thread I was just stating there are far more complex reasons for religious violence whereas football violence is for relatively simple reasons .

Right first off as most people having a moan do you are putting words in to my mouth. I did not say that that people receiving death/rape threats etc. is alright because they can delete it. As such everything else in that paragraph is nonsense along with bringing up stealing stuff again which is totally unrelated.But if you want to make a comparison then if you leave the door unlocked people are going to do stuff. There are plenty of laws in place already which cover all this.

For me personally you speak as if having your twitter feed open for anyone on the planet to comment on is completely natural? I don't use Twitter because I can't be bothered but I certainly don't leave my Facebook account open for anyone to comment on. There is no human right not to be offended. If you do not want to be offended then do not provide people with plenty of opportunities to offend you. If people are breaking the law or harassing you there are plenty of measures in place for them to be brought to justice. Again along with blocking these people it has never been so easy to track them down.

And what was that stuff about trolls sharing personal information. You are conflating trolls with full on stalkers. There are plenty of laws in place to combat this stuff. What would you have the world like? Because if you want to stop this kind of thing happening you would have to close down this forum and all forums. It would still happen by other means.

All I have said is that if you don't want to hear bad things from people directly on your own Twitter feed/Facebook Page/e-mail address etc. don't give it out to people. If you do "choose" to give your information out then trust in the law to deal with anything that goes wrong accordingly.

 

[muz379]

Right first off as most people having a moan do you are putting words in to my mouth. I did not say that that people receiving death/rape threats etc. is alright because they can delete it. As such everything else in that paragraph is nonsense along with bringing up stealing stuff again which is totally unrelated.But if you want to make a comparison then if you leave the door unlocked people are going to do stuff. There are plenty of laws in place already which cover all this.

For me personally you speak as if having your twitter feed open for anyone on the planet to comment on is completely natural? I don't use Twitter because I can't be bothered but I certainly don't leave my Facebook account open for anyone to comment on. There is no human right not to be offended. If you do not want to be offended then do not provide people with plenty of opportunities to offend you. If people are breaking the law or harassing you there are plenty of measures in place for them to be brought to justice. Again along with blocking these people it has never been so easy to track them down.

Whilst I did put words in your mouth yes ,I did acknowledge that I could have understood you incorrectly and it appears I have so I apologize for that .

Yes quite right leaving your twitter feed open to the public (i dont actually use twitter btw ) is going to lead to people posting trolling posts on it just as leaving your door unlocked is asking for people to steal from you

However their liability for stealing from you is not negated just because the keys where left in the ignition or the door was unlocked . They have still committed a crime . Just like those making threats/harassing online have still done wrong even if the user themselves has facilitated it by leaving their wall set up so anybody can comment on it . And the law will not see the situation any differently .

I dont know the way twitter works fully but I believe that anybody can just tweet something to you or onto your feed . it seems to be the way a lot of companies and celbs work , even with your whole fb profile on private someone that is not your friend can still send you messages . Say in the case of the twitter feed of a TOC is it not obvious why that should be on a setting so anybody can tweet to it .
If this is how twitter then yes having twitter set up like that is natural (I must admit one of the reasons I dont have it is because that is how I think it works ). And even if it is not natural doesn't mean that you should then not be protected from people harassing you .


Im not saying there is or should be a human right not to be offended but there are rights and laws that protect you from being harassed/abused or threatened be that in person or online and it seems you understand that and agree then that if someone was to harass a celebrity on twitter or Facebook then they should be criminalized ?

I think you have overreacted a bit to what I am saying . I have not suggested twitter or Facebook should be shut down , or that people merely making offensive comments should be subject of prosecution .Ive seen people post offensive jokes and videos , opinions etc on Facebook . I dont think they should be criminalized .

So all I believe is that people that use social media as a tool to abuse ,harass ,threaten or incite others to violence should be prosecuted as is currently the case under the law .

As I said earlier I do think we need to be careful that this law is strictly adhered to and it is not overstepped because the threat to free speech is credible and ever present when people start getting prosecuted for saying things that merely offend others rather than things that actually cause real distress to others .

I agree with your earlier posts that we should educate people on how to protect themselves from these crimes online . However when they do take place I still think we should prosecute the perpetrators even if the victims themselves have been unwise .

And what was that stuff about trolls sharing personal information. You are conflating trolls with full on stalkers. There are plenty of laws in place to combat this stuff. What would you have the world like? Because if you want to stop this kind of thing happening you would have to close down this forum and all forums. It would still happen by other means.

All I have said is that if you don't want to hear bad things from people directly on your own Twitter feed/Facebook Page/e-mail address etc. don't give it out to people. If you do "choose" to give your information out then trust in the law to deal with anything that goes wrong accordingly.

Given that nobody has really offered up an accepted definition of troll I was running with the assumption that a troll was someone that abused others online .

There you go putting words into my mouth now . I have never once in this thread suggested closing down twitter or facebook or any other online social media site as a result of trolling .

I have merely suggested that those that use social media in a way that would be illegal if it was spoken word should be prosecuted which is the case under the law

I do agree with the final comment here is that the best way to avoid being trolled is to not share your contact details . However if you do decide to share them and fall foul of someone breaking the law and harassing or threatening you should then be able to rely on the law to then deal with that situation .

 

[fowler9]

However their liability for stealing from you is not negated just because the keys where left in the ignition or the door was unlocked . They have still committed a crime . Just like those making threats/harassing online have still done wrong even if the user themselves has facilitated it by leaving their wall set up so anybody can comment on it . And the law will not see the situation any differently .

Yeah mate, to be honest I'm not sure how Twitter works. I avoid it. I mainly avoid it because the thought of tweeting people sounded odd and I felt all itchy when people told me their Twitter feed was being followed by Jude Law or god knows who. It doesn't interest me. I do like Facebook because I feel I have a degree of control over it, I don't post anything (Normaly) that I wouldn't want all the family reading. I believe I dd put words in your mouth there and I apologise.

One thing I still don't agree with is the old leaving yourself open in certain circumstances. Your insurance company wouldn't give you a penny if the house was unlocked. Mind you the insurance companies are scum bags.

Ha ha. I have enjoyed debating this but am off for tea which m brother ha made!

 

[muz379]

One thing I still don't agree with is the old leaving yourself open in certain circumstances. Your insurance company wouldn't give you a penny if the house was unlocked. Mind you the insurance companies are scum bags.

True , but then insurance law and criminal law are separate areas .
I dont really have a problem with insurers not paying out if you have been unwise . But I dont think prosecutions should be avoided just because the victim has been unwise .

I think tbh we both have the wrong end of the stick about each others ideas . I thought you meant people should just be able to do or say what they want online . And I think you thought I was all for closing any form of social media down because it allows others to be abused .

When in reality I just think that those that say anything that it would be illegal to say in person should be prosecuted as if they said it in public .

But would defend peoples rights to say offensive things because otherwise you could go down a slippery slope with prohibiting offensive content . .

has been a pleasure , and as I said I dont accuse people that have backed up their points with a reasonable argument as trolls . In fact I dont think I have ever accused someone of being a troll .

 

[fowler9]

True , but then insurance law and criminal law are separate areas .
I dont really have a problem with insurers not paying out if you have been unwise . But I dont think prosecutions should be avoided just because the victim has been unwise .

I think tbh we both have the wrong end of the stick about each others ideas . I thought you meant people should just be able to do or say what they want online . And I think you thought I was all for closing any form of social media down because it allows others to be abused .

When in reality I just think that those that say anything that it would be illegal to say in person should be prosecuted as if they said it in public .

But would defend peoples rights to say offensive things because otherwise you could go down a slippery slope with prohibiting offensive content . .

has been a pleasure , and as I said I dont accuse people that have backed up their points with a reasonable argument as trolls . In fact I dont think I have ever accused someone of being a troll .

Ha ha, I agree mate. The last post I made I started thinking "We are pretty much saying the same thing here". Ha ha. It has been a pleasure chatting.

 

[ExRes]

But we can't really kick out the last government because they already got kicked out so we are stuck with kicking out the present one. It would seem to me it is you that is stuck in the old "It was all their fault" argument.

So your answer is to bring back one which was just as bad but as it isn't the one in power at this moment then it's ok to bring them back to do the same as the one in power that you want to kick out, so fine, I'm totally in the wrong and you are in the right by ignoring the cause of the problem, how could I be so stupid when such clever people as you know all the answers

 

[fowler9]

So your answer is to bring back one which was just as bad but as it isn't the one in power at this moment then it's ok to bring them back to do the same as the one in power that you want to kick out, so fine, I'm totally in the wrong and you are in the right by ignoring the cause of the problem, how could I be so stupid when such clever people as you know all the answers

Yeah mate. Would you care to point out where I said I would bring the last lot back? If you are going to make comments in such a way that you are trying to give the impression I was belittling you, which I wasn't, try not to back up what you think I was saying.

 

[muz379]

So your answer is to bring back one which was just as bad but as it isn't the one in power at this moment then it's ok to bring them back to do the same as the one in power that you want to kick out, so fine, I'm totally in the wrong and you are in the right by ignoring the cause of the problem, how could I be so stupid when such clever people as you know all the answers

Technically we wouldnt be bringing back one which was in power because the front bench of the opposition has been subject to change since the last election

Not to mention you have to have someone in government . I however might be tempted to think that people choose governments based off more important things than the number of suicidies that occur during their time in office .

I do believe the point fowler(hope he doesn't mind me putting words in his mouth again :P) was trying to make which sparked this line of discussion was that your argument that we should ban social media because suicides have been attributed to events on there is quite frivolous because suicides have been attributed to many things . Including the current government . If there have been suicides attributed to the last government (?) then I guess that means they too should be banned from government as well and then what do we do ? coalition of greens and lib dems and ukip ?

 

[fowler9]

Technically we wouldnt be bringing back one which was in power because the front bench of the opposition has been subject to change since the last election

Not to mention you have to have someone in government . I however might be tempted to think that people choose governments based off more important things than the number of suicidies that occur during their time in office .

I do believe the point fowler(hope he doesn't mind me putting words in his mouth again :P) was trying to make which sparked this line of discussion was that your argument that we should ban social media because suicides have been attributed to events on there is quite frivolous because suicides have been attributed to many things . Including the current government . If there have been suicides attributed to the last government (?) then I guess that means they too should be banned from government as well and then what do we do ? coalition of greens and lib dems and ukip ?

Nah spot on mate. You took the words right out of my mouth. Ha ha.

 

[Greenback]

I think the proposals to increase the maximum sentence available for these type of offences from six months to two years is a step in the right direction.

 

[fowler9]

I think the proposals to increase the maximum sentence available for these type of offences from six months to two years is a step in the right direction.

That would seem to be reasonable to me.

 

[Greenback]

I hope that the publicity around the changes will also help to drive home the message that this type of behaviour is unacceptable and will be punished.

Along with better education, and more action by the site owners, we may take a step forward to making trolling (however it's defined) socially unacceptable.

 

[swj99]

I hope that the publicity around the changes will also help to drive home the message that this type of behaviour is unacceptable and will be punished.

Along with better education, and more action by the site owners, we may take a step forward to making trolling (however it's defined) socially unacceptable.

I'm not sure why you're suggesting making trolling socially unacceptable when it's almost impossible to define.

I think encouraging people to complain about someone saying things they don't like on the internet is an example of society making a rod for it's own back, in that if situations such as these continue for long enough, people will be able to be prosecuted for pretty much anything, at any time. For example, whilst not directly related to trolling, the Protection from Harassment Act 1997 says

1 Prohibition of harassment.

(1)A person must not pursue a course of conduct—

(a) which amounts to harassment of another, and

(b) which he knows or ought to know amounts to harassment of the other.

(2) For the purposes of this section, the person whose course of conduct is in question ought to know that it amounts to harassment of another if a reasonable person in possession of the same information would think the course of conduct amounted to harassment of the other.

Now that is a fairly loosely worded piece of legislation, which is potentially open to a very wide interpretation. It can mean almost anything a court is prepared to believe it means. Who can really say what amounts to harassment ? It's just as difficult to define that as it is to define trolling. Just look at the many different definitions that have been put forward here and elsewhere on the internet. If the next door neighbour plays his music loud, late at night, and is asked to lower the volume but he ignores the request, it could be argued that this is a course of conduct that he ought to know amounts to harassment.

I believe the current suggestion of increasing the penalties for so called trolling are just a political sound byte, from a party struggling to justify it's existence in the knowledge that it faces many challenges at the next election.

Be careful what you wish for.

 

[455driver]

I think the proposals to increase the maximum sentence available for these type of offences from six months to two years is a step in the right direction.

If it is used!

How many other sentences have been increased but never used?
Carrying a knife was supposed to be a prisonable offence but how many have actually been locked up?

Its all very well having the laws but its another to have the Judges (and sentencing guidelines) to actually use them!

 

[Xenophon PCDGS]

If it is used! How many other sentences have been increased but never used? Carrying a knife was supposed to be a prisonable offence but how many have actually been locked up?

Its all very well having the laws but its another to have the Judges (and sentencing guidelines) to actually use them!

Just wait until it is the period of six to nine months prior to a General Election when MP's suddenly experience Damascene moments when all these matters suddenly become fresh in their minds and they, imbued with this "newly found knowledge", begin to make media comments to let everyone know how socially aware they really are...

 

[Johnuk123]

If it is used!

How many other sentences have been increased but never used?
Carrying a knife was supposed to be a prisonable offence but how many have actually been locked up?

Its all very well having the laws but its another to have the Judges (and sentencing guidelines) to actually use them!

Absolutely, I think I can confidently predict nobody will get much more than the 6 months available now.

A good defence lawyer and plenty of sobbing always does the trick.