Maximum sentence for internet trolls raised to 2 years in the UK.

[MerinPally]

Guess I'll just quote myself quoting what was said when this law was clarified back in 2012.

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.

So calling someone fat wouldn't do it.

And also to quote myself - British law occasionally works on something called "Common sense" which they don't have in the USA, there they just have who has the most money. So literally none of the ridiculous situations suggested in this thread will happen. That has been demonstrated over the previous 3 years as well.

- - - Updated - - -

so if you can prove that some ones offensive remark no matter how slight it is as long as you can prove it was to cause stress or anxiety then they are in violation

Wrong. Do some research or at least read the previous page of the thread, where an actual quote was used to show how this isn't the case. Shocking you still came to this conclusion because the rest of the quote even says you're wrong!

[Celista]

And also to quote myself - British law occasionally works on something called "Common sense" which they don't have in the USA, there they just have who has the most money. So literally none of the ridiculous situations suggested in this thread will happen. That has been demonstrated over the previous 3 years as well.

We have this in the US, too :/ Money has nothing to do with sentencing or law formation. Examples of laws where there is a common sense/"reasonableness" factor built into legal interpretation include the Rule of Reason in antitrust suits, etc.

[ddsad2212]

What's an internet troll classified as? Is it constant harassment or would it include the guy call "Paul Walker" on twisting nether asking for gold to cover car repair costs? .Actually interested in knowing how it's defined by the law

[Nihilist74]

http://www.gamesindustry.biz/article...ears-in-the-uk


Some parts of this are really worrying, the UK seems to be getting more and more authoritarian.

I like the intention of the law but idea behind it could be contorted to mean anything distressing depending on the individual.

[MerinPally]

I like the intention of the law but idea behind it could be contorted to mean anything distressing depending on the individual.

It's been fine for the previous 3 years and the 24 years before even that.

There's no new law here, just a sentencing change, I wish for a better or an added source in the OP.

[mmokri]

BlackMail slavery system.

[MerinPally]

The media uses the word "troll" to describe those people who post hate messages on the internet such as racist comments, rape threats, murder threats etc. They don't use the definition that the internet uses. Examples include one I distinctively remember of "rest in piss nigger" that sort of thing but saying it once nothing happens, repeatedly following the person and doing it again and again gets you classed as this.

An example in the news at the moment: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/culture/t...at-trolls.html

An example posted on the link is "Judy’s given me her blessing to rape you. Naturally, I have to acquire a paper bag first. It’s not to suffocate you with or to hide one’s identity, it’s to cover up your rat-like face with the humongous nose." Judy being her mother.

It's a troll in the sense that it comes with the inflammatory comment of the nose. It's not allowed because it's a rape threat.

I've linked the law so many times now it's quoted on the previous 3 pages, I'm not going to bother repeating it. This thing about causing people stress and anxiety has been answered repeatedly. The source used in the OP is fucking terrible, I've provided others, check them.

[Lynarii]

I like the intention of the law but idea behind it could be contorted to mean anything distressing depending on the individual.

Except that if you read the law, it doesn't say anything about how the recipient feels, it talks about the intent of the sender. If it goes to court, you get absolutely nowhere proving that you feel hurt about what was said, you need to try and prove that the intent of the person saying it was to harm you. This is actually a fairly high bar when it comes to court, because someone being a generic dick is not proof of specific intent. You also have to convince a judge, and judges don't generally look favorably upon people who try and munchkin the system. Your interpretation of the law is irrelevant, it's only the judge's interpretation of it that matters.

[Nakotsu]

This new sentencing will only apply to those in the UK.

Well since UK doesnt matter much. Troll on trolls...

[MerinPally]

Except that if you read the law, it doesn't say anything about how the recipient feels, it talks about the intent of the sender. If it goes to court, you get absolutely nowhere proving that you feel hurt about what was said, you need to try and prove that the intent of the person saying it was to harm you. This is actually a fairly high bar when it comes to court, because someone being a generic dick is not proof of specific intent. You also have to convince a judge, and judges don't generally look favorably upon people who try and munchkin the system. Your interpretation of the law is irrelevant, it's only the judge's interpretation of it that matters.

Please, it's been 13 pages of people commenting with absolutely no knowledge of what the law is, only to discover about 3 or 4 pages ago that very similar laws exist in other countries including the USA. Most people seem to think it's a new law but we've had it since 1988. That's how little people seem to know of this and how much time they spent reading OP.

[Kalis]

Well that sounds perfectly reasonable. The wording presented didnt. Perhaps it was a bad source. That being said is this a reaction because people thing rape threats online will actually correlate to rape. Is it common for rapists to announce the rape is on its way before a serious rape crime? Just curious. Also does this law take into account people useing alternate forms of the word rape. For example I often tell my friends Im gonna rape them in smash brother. Im sure millions do this as well around the world. For example does the law really go after a child saying hes gonna rape his friends over a headset during a call of duty match? Seems like a waste of money to peruse obviously non credible threats. Of course what you linked wouldnt be interpreted in that way (aggressive competition between friends) but still. Seems more like a bad joke with out taste rather then a credible rape threat.

The British legal system takes context into account, so things like that wouldn't even be brought up before a judge.

[MerinPally]

Well that sounds perfectly reasonable. The wording presented didnt. Perhaps it was a bad source. That being said is this a reaction because people think rape threats online will actually correlate to rape. Is it common for rapists to announce the rape is on its way before a serious rape crime? Just curious. Also does this law take into account people useing alternate forms of the word rape. For example I often tell my friends Im gonna rape them in super smash brothers. Im sure millions do this as well around the world. For example does the law really go after a child saying hes gonna rape his friends over a headset during a call of duty match? Seems like a waste of money to peruse obviously non credible threats. Of course what you linked wouldnt be interpreted in that way (aggressive competition between friends) but still. Seems more like a bad joke with out taste rather then a credible rape threat.

The OP is just a terrible source.

This is not a reaction to anything, we've had this law for 27 years with a clarification 3 years ago just to specify a few things. That clarificaton is posted on this page and answers your question about what if you say it to your friends or what if a child says it during Call of Duty. It literally specifies that bad taste jokes even if someone gets offended, do not count.

It's a case of "it's illegal to harass and threaten people in the street so why should it be fine to do it from behind a screen". You can insult people all you want, you're just not allowed to harass, slander, stalk or threaten etc.

[Kalis]

The OP is just a terrible source.

This is not a reaction to anything, we've had this law for 27 years with a clarification 3 years ago just to specify a few things. That clarificaton is posted on this page and answers your question about what if you say it to your friends or what if a child says it during Call of Duty. It literally specifies that bad taste jokes even if someone gets offended, do not count.

It's a case of "it's illegal to harass and threaten people in the street so why should it be fine to do it from behind a screen". You can insult people all you want, you're just not allowed to harass, slander, stalk or threaten etc.

To clarify, this law originally had nothing to do with the internet (as it didn't exist), it was brought in for postal threats and has since been updated to all forms of communication.