Websites to be forced to identify trolls under new laws

[Bahamut - Envoy of the End]

This story has been the headline story on Sky News since I woke up this morning, and I've taken this snippet from the BBC News website. Seems an interesting bit of legislation if passed, think it is just the British Government looking at passing this right now but still, worth a look.

[spoiler=News story]
[b][size=6]Websites to be forced to identify trolls under new measures[/size][/b]

[size=3]Sites such as Facebook have been used to abuse people under the mask of anonymity [/size]

[size=3]Websites will soon to be forced to identify people who have posted defamatory messages online.[/size]

[size=3]New government proposals say victims have a right to know who is behind malicious messages without the need for costly legal battles.[/size]

[size=3]The powers will be balanced by measures to prevent false claims in order to get material removed.[/size]

[size=3]Last week, a British woman won a court order forcing Facebook to identify users who had harassed her.[/size]
[size=3]Nicola Brookes had been falsely branded a paedophile and drug dealer by users - known as trolls - on Facebook.[/size]
[size=3]Facebook, which did not contest the order, will now reveal the IP addresses of people who had abused her so she can prosecute them.[/size]

[size=3]The new powers, to be added to the Defamation Bill, will make this process far less time-consuming and costly, the government said.[/size]

[size=3]Complying with requests would afford the website greater protection from being sued in the event of a defamation claim.[/size]
[size=3]Currently, in legal terms, every website "hit" - visit - on a defamatory article can be counted as a separate offence.[/size]

[size=3]This means many websites remove articles as soon as a defamation claim is made - either rightly or wrongly.[/size]

[size=3]"Website operators are in principle liable as publishers for everything that appears on their sites, even though the content is often determined by users," said Justice Secretary Ken Clarke. [/size]

[size=3]"But most operators are not in a position to know whether the material posted is defamatory or not and very often - faced with a complaint - they will immediately remove material.[/size]

[size=3]Nicola Brookes said the abuse started after she posted a message about an X Factor star [/size]

[size=3]"Our proposed approach will mean that website operators have a defence against libel as long as they identify the authors of allegedly defamatory material when requested to do so by a complainant."[/size]

[size=3]Mr Clarke said the measures would mean an end to "scurrilous rumour and allegation" being posted online without fear of adequate punishment.[/size]

[size=3]"The government wants a libel regime for the internet that makes it possible for people to protect their reputations effectively but also ensures that information online can't be easily censored by casual threats of litigation against website operators.[/size]

[size=3]"It will be very important to ensure that these measures do not inadvertently expose genuine whistleblowers, and we are committed to getting the detail right to minimise this risk."[/size][/spoiler]

I like that the main news story is about trolls, and how much emphasis reporters keep putting on the moniker.

Not impling that lawsuits are going to start being thrown around this site at all, just thought it would be worth a discussion here.

[Resident Fascist]

Wait, what do they class as a 'Troll'? If you can't insult someone on the internet because of them calling you a "Troll" then this is just idiotic. I thought we already [i]had [/i]a law for Abuse? If someone is just petty talking like "Your Mother..." jokes and whatever people don't find funny or offensive, then no. If it's harrasment, then fine. I think we have another case of "You don't know what games are unless you play them." And many people will jump on the bandwagon.

[Cin]

Webusers do need defending against people who just post insulting and sometimes sick comments. Especially those trolls who posts on Facebook pages to commerate the dead, with horrific comments. I just doubt about how many people really will be charged by this law, since the current law is such a failure anyway (BBC Panorama covered Trolling, and even faced one who just plain didn't care about what he'd done.)

I do agree that the law cannot be used for minor insulting comments, but when they get really derogatory, they should be hunted down.

[Bahamut - Envoy of the End]

[quote name='Јordan' timestamp='1339500408' post='5955848']
Wait, what do they class as a 'Troll'? If you can't insult someone on the internet because of them calling you a "Troll" then this is just idiotic. I thought we already [i]had [/i]a law for Abuse? If someone is just petty talking like "Your Mother..." jokes and whatever people don't find funny or offensive, then no. If it's harrasment, then fine. I think we have another case of "You don't know what games are unless you play them." And many people will jump on the bandwagon.
[/quote]

[quote name='Yin' timestamp='1339500850' post='5955849']
Webusers do need defending against people who just post insulting and sometimes sick comments. Especially those trolls who posts on Facebook pages to commerate the dead, with horrific comments. I just doubt about how many people really will be charged by this law, since the current law is such a failure anyway (BBC Panorama covered Trolling, and even faced one who just plain didn't care about what he'd done.)

I do agree that the law cannot be used for minor insulting comments, but when they get really derogatory, they should be hunted down.
[/quote]

The law from my understanding is for serious abuse and defamation that people would already get charged for if they did in public, such as the woman mentioned in the article having rumours put around about her being a paedo and drug dealer with no substance.

You won't have coppers knocking down your door for offhandedly calling someone an idiot.

[Resident Fascist]

[quote name='Majestic Star Bahamut' timestamp='1339501714' post='5955852']

The law from my understanding is for serious abuse and defamation that people would already get charged for if they did in public, such as the woman mentioned in the article having rumours put around about her being a paedo and drug dealer with no substance.

You won't have coppers knocking down your door for offhandedly calling someone an idiot.
[/quote]

Then that's justified and it seems like a good idea.

[Legend Zero]

I do agree that cyber-bullying (which is what this is to me in a nutshell) shouldn't exist. In my opinion, that is not what the anonymity of the Internet is for. However, like all bills/laws concerning the Internet, I do fear the slippy slope it could put us on. Once a government passes one law concerning it then everyone just hops on the bandwagon.

[Tentacruel]

Fascist bastards.

[Lunar Origins]

[img]http://www.tshirtroundup.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/10/lmao.png[/img]



Oh this is just [i]golden[/i].

[Poc]

no fun allowed.

the internet is turning into a virtual north korea more and more every day.

[Mehmani]

Violates free speech and this new law will definitely be exploited. Insulting someone IRL is considered unpleasant and rude, but you can't go to prison for it. The internet is no different in this case, and people need to learn to have thicker skins and stop BAWWWWWing every time someone disagrees with them.

[Bahamut - Envoy of the End]

[quote name='Poc' timestamp='1339694850' post='5956915']
no fun allowed.

the internet is turning into a virtual north korea more and more every day.
[/quote]

[quote name='Botvinnik' timestamp='1339697143' post='5956923']
Violates free speech and this new law will definitely be exploited. Insulting someone IRL is considered unpleasant and rude, but you can't go to prison for it. The internet is no different in this case, and people need to learn to have thicker skins and stop BAWWWWWing every time someone disagrees with them.
[/quote]

...

[quote name='Majestic Star Bahamut' timestamp='1339501714' post='5955852']

The law from my understanding is for serious abuse and defamation that people would already get charged for if they did in public, such as the woman mentioned in the article having rumours put around about her being a paedo and drug dealer with no substance.

You won't have coppers knocking down your door for offhandedly calling someone an idiot.
[/quote]

Yes, because what harmless fun making up vendetta's against randoms accusing them of being child-abusers/rapists/etc/etc is. We should all try it

I'll repeat because some people have got thick skin over thier ears/eyes/brains. That's what this is suppossed to be designed to protect people from, and stop people seriously ruining lives in the safety of the anonimity of a computer screen. YOU'RE NOT GOING TO BE CHARGED FOR EVERY OFFHAND COMMENT BECAUSE OF THIS!!! All this is a way to force sites like Facebook/Twitter to give out details of abusers so court cases can be pressed against them without a ton of roadblocks. What people deem worthy of wanting to sue for is up to them, but you think any court mag/judge is going to look at someone going 'he made a sarcastic comment at me over the Internet' and not tell them to stop wasting his time?

If anything you should be worried about Data Protection.

[Icy]

[quote name='Botvinnik' timestamp='1339697143' post='5956923']
Violates free speech and this new law will definitely be exploited. Insulting someone IRL is considered unpleasant and rude, but you can't go to prison for it. The internet is no different in this case, and people need to learn to have thicker skins and stop BAWWWWWing every time someone disagrees with them.
[/quote]

I'm quite sure it would only cover situations of dire influence or effects. Similar to how "Free Speech" doesn't cover particular forms of intentionally destructive speech, and follow by the same rules. Yes you are quite right. The internet IS no different. Criminal Behavior is Criminal. Suffer for it.

And according to what Bahamut posted, there may have been a situation where calling her such names and accusations would have real world consequences. You would still say that people online should not pay for such things?

[Garthfunkle Vii Backwards]

[quote name='Јordan' timestamp='1339500408' post='5955848']
Wait, what do they class as a 'Troll'? If you can't insult someone on the internet because of them calling you a "Troll" then this is just idiotic. I thought we already [i]had [/i]a law for Abuse? If someone is just petty talking like "Your Mother..." jokes and whatever people don't find funny or offensive, then no. If it's harrasment, then fine. I think we have another case of "You don't know what games are unless you play them." And many people will jump on the bandwagon.
[/quote]

they need a VERY SPECIFIC DIF. OF THE TERM "TROLL"
and what would be good clause to sue and or tie up the legal process even futher

[quote name='Majestic Star Bahamut' timestamp='1339773181' post='5957319']
Yes, because what harmless fun making up vendetta's against randoms accusing them of being child-abusers/rapists/etc/etc is. We should all try it
I'll repeat because some people have got thick skin over thier ears/eyes/brains. That's what this is suppossed to be designed to protect people from, and stop people seriously ruining lives in the safety of the anonimity of a computer screen. YOU'RE NOT GOING TO BE CHARGED FOR EVERY OFFHAND COMMENT BECAUSE OF THIS!!! All this is a way to force sites like Facebook/Twitter to give out details of abusers so court cases can be pressed against them without a ton of roadblocks. What people deem worthy of wanting to sue for is up to them, but you think any court mag/judge is going to look at someone going 'he made a sarcastic comment at me over the Internet' and not tell them to stop wasting his time?

If anything you should be worried about Data Protection.
[/quote]

agian

they need a VERY SPECIFIC DIF. OF THE TERM "TROLL"
and what would be good clause to sue and or tie up the legal process even futher

and yes the one thing i would be worried about is about data i can get over rude terrible un needed comment about my dead mother sooner or later im not the type to hold a grudge ... (or am i? lolz just joking)

now if they are posting bs that would literaly ruin your life (ruin your credit score your job etc get you kick out of your home lose your car etc get you thrown in jail yes that would fall under a plausable cause to sue em)