6 ms·

Internet trolls face up to two years in jail under new laws

28 points by k-mcgrady 12y ago

diminoten 12y ago
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.
- k-mcgrady 12y ago
  I guess the debate is should that include the freedom to threaten people. Personally I think that the current laws are used irrationally at times but in cases where someone is being threatened (even if that threat is unlikely to be carried out) I think it's fine. We need to look at it from a bigger perspective than is it good/bad for web freedom or even freedom of speech. Is it in the public interest to allow or disallow specific types of speech? That's the important question.
  - sarciszewski 12y ago
    Yes
  - diminoten 12y ago
    Material threats, the ones that seem actionable, seems like a good line to draw, and I think it's the current state of the law in the U.S. E.g., if I threaten to "kill you" because of a bad book review, I'm allowed to say that. But if I threaten to "kill you in your living room tomorrow night at 7pm", that's illegal, because I've provided specific detail about when/where. Honestly I don't know the specifics of the US law, if someone else could chime in and clear things up a bit, that'd probably be better than me butchering the law.
- aunty_helen 12y ago
  Freedom of speech really has become a bit of a burden to modern society though. By incrementally reclassifying what is considered free speech and outlawing the rest we can one day live in a world where no one ever has to have their feelings hurt again. Won't that be wonderful? Our politicians certainly seem to think it's a good idea.
  - k-mcgrady 12y ago
    Someone threatening to kill you/rape you/etc. is a bit more than getting your feelings hurt. If they walked up to you in the street and did it they would be arrested. Online it's difficult to tell if the threat is real or not and it can do a lot more to a persons mental state than hurt their feelings.
    - aunty_helen 12y ago
      Saying you're going to kill someone on the interwebs is a flippant gesture weighted by anonymity. It means nothing and the barriers to carry out that threat are high(distance, tracking them down etc). If you're face to face with someone and are making threats, unless you're some loon, they probably carry a bit of weight and emotion. The two are very different and so should be treated differently. Locking up a bunch of keyboard warriors because they spammed you some feeble minded insults on twitter isn't going to do anyone any favors.
      - k-mcgrady 12y ago
        >> "Saying you're going to kill someone on the interwebs is a flippant gesture weighted by anonymity. It means nothing and the barriers to carry out that threat are high(distance, tracking them down etc)." I'm sure people who have received these threats would disagree that they mean nothing. Regarding barriers there is no way to tell what the barriers are - which is probably what scares people. The person making the threat could be 3,000 miles away or they could live in your street. If the threats are anonymous you have no way to know.
    - drdaeman 12y ago
      Is it more than feelings? Worst thing that happens when one receives a death threat is them getting seriously worried about it. Luckily, I haven't received such treats in face (i.e. non-online), and all threats I've got online were so childishly retarded I think no sane person would ever consider them serious, but... I strongly suspect I'd be worried not about the statements, but about the actually happening offender's actions and physical situation I'm in. But it's only psychological, not physical harm. Another possibility is if threat's here and it's subjectively serious enough to disregard, but offender seemingly does nothing (or cannot be observed), leaving me worried about the situation I'm in. But, again, it's only my feelings being hurt, no physical harm whatsoever. I'm not trying to say such threats are nothing serious (they surely are), but I think I disagree about the "more than feelings" part. And I think it would be much worse if I'll get suddenly attacked without any prior threats. So, silencing the threats may have negative effects.
- oneeyedpigeon 12y ago
  Yup, as you say, this is in the UK where we - rightfully, in my opinion - don't value freedom above everything else, unconditionally. Whether this means not allowing all citizens to own/carry firearms, or preventing abuse and harassment, I believe we have the balance just about right. Edit: there's a difference between not "liking what's said" about you, and living in a perpetual state of fear, with an expectation that you might be killed any minute"
  - boyaka 12y ago
    As if there isn't a balance in the US. It has always been my understanding that we have the right to express our freedoms as long as they don't infringe upon other peoples' freedoms. Say you go up to somebody in public who is minding their own business and start yelling expletives at them and threaten to murder them. Obviously that is making it impossible for them to be free to do what they are doing, and they could certainly have you arrested for that (disturbing the peace or something). It's difficult to apply this to the Internet because that person certainly has the power to NOT READ the comments from somebody that is attempting to troll them. There are plenty of services in place to ignore these trolls, but instead people let themselves be trolled and then complain about being a victim. This is nothing new, it has been happening since the beginning, but these less experienced users just haven't learned how the Internet works.
    - DanBC 12y ago
      > because that person certainly has the power to NOT READ the comments from somebody that is attempting to troll them. You're hopelessly uninformed about the sheer quantity of messages that a harasser can send. Modern Internet trolling easily reaches ddos levels and services make blocking harassing users harder than it should be.
      - boyaka 12y ago
        I agree. I am not a very social person and haven't been on the receiving end of these situations. I have encountered plenty of trolls and have had no problem ignoring them, but I suppose the trolling can reach a level where that is impossible on certain platforms.
- RobertKerans 12y ago
  Freedom of speech surely isn't as simple as being able to say whatever you want to say, given that certain things (implied threats, say) will infringe upon the freedom of others.
- DanBC 12y ago
  "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.
  - oneeyedpigeon 12y ago
    The most worrying thing about hate speech today is that time and time again it's in response to people, usually women, campaigning for gender equality, and almost always takes the form of violent sexual threats. There really is a concerted effort taking place to try to prevent women from having their say, and it's sickening.
    - foolrush 12y ago
      This point illustrates that the discourse is complex and flows into a good number of other equally toxic positions of privilege and hegemonic power. It would be quite interesting to see a breakdown of death, rape, and violent threats based on a victim's gender, race, and other such factors.
  - diminoten 12y ago
    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.
- EliRivers 12y ago
  How about deliberately hurting and frightening people for no reason other than your own entertainment? I can't see that we should privilege deliberately hurting people for your own entertainment just because the weapon being used is words.
- adventured 12y ago
  No, it's an extreme net detriment to freedom. Laws like this never stop with the initial effort, they get used, manipulated, and pushed even further. Typically they end up being used to justify other totalitarian laws that further restrict individual liberty. Supposedly it's a law attempting to outlaw bullying; it's actually a law meant to dramatically curb personal freedom. It's like the FBI claiming they need access to your phone - everyone's phone - to stop pedophiles. It's nothing but a ruse to curtail liberty.
grimtrigger 12y ago
Doesn't the UK already have laws against threats of bodily harm? If so - what is different about threats made online than offline?
- arethuza 12y ago
  There is the Malicious Communications Act 1988: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Malicious_Communications_Act_1988 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Malicious_Communications_Act_19... 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#Malicious_communications http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Communications_Act_2003#Malicio... The latter has had a lot of criticism: http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2012/apr/27/law-criminalisng-offensive-twitter-use http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2012/apr/27/law-cri...
carsongross 12y ago
Prediction: the comments in this thread will once again demonstrate the deep division between brits and yanks in their commitment to free speech.
- hga 12y ago
  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 12y ago
    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-troll-dead-dad-olympics-london-2012_n_1720838.html http://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/2012/07/30/tom-daley-twitter... "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 12y ago
      Exactly - that part of the Wikipedia page I linked to should really be updated to point that out.
sremani 12y ago
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.
- deleted 12y ago
  [deleted]
- ASneakyFox 12y ago
  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.
adventured 12y ago
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.
- pjc50 12y ago
  We're quite capable of seeing it, and it has been worse in the recent past (especially relating to Northern Ireland); but this sort of stuff is also popular with a large chunk of the public.
- tim333 12y ago
  >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 12y ago
    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 12y ago
      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 12y ago
        this tells you what and when, not why. straight from Hitler: "To prevent this terror," that's the justification he repeats.
emocakes 12y ago
Ridiculous
dobbsbob 12y ago
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_Lipstadt http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Irving_v_Penguin_Books_and_Lips... 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.
deleted 12y ago
[deleted]
pmoriarty 12y ago
"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"?

28 points by k-mcgrady 12y ago

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.

k-mcgrady 12y ago
I guess the debate is should that include the freedom to threaten people. Personally I think that the current laws are used irrationally at times but in cases where someone is being threatened (even if that threat is unlikely to be carried out) I think it's fine. We need to look at it from a bigger perspective than is it good/bad for web freedom or even freedom of speech. Is it in the public interest to allow or disallow specific types of speech? That's the important question.
- sarciszewski 12y ago
  Yes
- diminoten 12y ago
  Material threats, the ones that seem actionable, seems like a good line to draw, and I think it's the current state of the law in the U.S. E.g., if I threaten to "kill you" because of a bad book review, I'm allowed to say that. But if I threaten to "kill you in your living room tomorrow night at 7pm", that's illegal, because I've provided specific detail about when/where. Honestly I don't know the specifics of the US law, if someone else could chime in and clear things up a bit, that'd probably be better than me butchering the law.
aunty_helen 12y ago
Freedom of speech really has become a bit of a burden to modern society though. By incrementally reclassifying what is considered free speech and outlawing the rest we can one day live in a world where no one ever has to have their feelings hurt again. Won't that be wonderful? Our politicians certainly seem to think it's a good idea.
- k-mcgrady 12y ago
  Someone threatening to kill you/rape you/etc. is a bit more than getting your feelings hurt. If they walked up to you in the street and did it they would be arrested. Online it's difficult to tell if the threat is real or not and it can do a lot more to a persons mental state than hurt their feelings.
  - aunty_helen 12y ago
    Saying you're going to kill someone on the interwebs is a flippant gesture weighted by anonymity. It means nothing and the barriers to carry out that threat are high(distance, tracking them down etc). If you're face to face with someone and are making threats, unless you're some loon, they probably carry a bit of weight and emotion. The two are very different and so should be treated differently. Locking up a bunch of keyboard warriors because they spammed you some feeble minded insults on twitter isn't going to do anyone any favors.
    - k-mcgrady 12y ago
      >> "Saying you're going to kill someone on the interwebs is a flippant gesture weighted by anonymity. It means nothing and the barriers to carry out that threat are high(distance, tracking them down etc)." I'm sure people who have received these threats would disagree that they mean nothing. Regarding barriers there is no way to tell what the barriers are - which is probably what scares people. The person making the threat could be 3,000 miles away or they could live in your street. If the threats are anonymous you have no way to know.
  - drdaeman 12y ago
    Is it more than feelings? Worst thing that happens when one receives a death threat is them getting seriously worried about it. Luckily, I haven't received such treats in face (i.e. non-online), and all threats I've got online were so childishly retarded I think no sane person would ever consider them serious, but... I strongly suspect I'd be worried not about the statements, but about the actually happening offender's actions and physical situation I'm in. But it's only psychological, not physical harm. Another possibility is if threat's here and it's subjectively serious enough to disregard, but offender seemingly does nothing (or cannot be observed), leaving me worried about the situation I'm in. But, again, it's only my feelings being hurt, no physical harm whatsoever. I'm not trying to say such threats are nothing serious (they surely are), but I think I disagree about the "more than feelings" part. And I think it would be much worse if I'll get suddenly attacked without any prior threats. So, silencing the threats may have negative effects.
oneeyedpigeon 12y ago
Yup, as you say, this is in the UK where we - rightfully, in my opinion - don't value freedom above everything else, unconditionally. Whether this means not allowing all citizens to own/carry firearms, or preventing abuse and harassment, I believe we have the balance just about right. Edit: there's a difference between not "liking what's said" about you, and living in a perpetual state of fear, with an expectation that you might be killed any minute"
- boyaka 12y ago
  As if there isn't a balance in the US. It has always been my understanding that we have the right to express our freedoms as long as they don't infringe upon other peoples' freedoms. Say you go up to somebody in public who is minding their own business and start yelling expletives at them and threaten to murder them. Obviously that is making it impossible for them to be free to do what they are doing, and they could certainly have you arrested for that (disturbing the peace or something). It's difficult to apply this to the Internet because that person certainly has the power to NOT READ the comments from somebody that is attempting to troll them. There are plenty of services in place to ignore these trolls, but instead people let themselves be trolled and then complain about being a victim. This is nothing new, it has been happening since the beginning, but these less experienced users just haven't learned how the Internet works.
  - DanBC 12y ago
    > because that person certainly has the power to NOT READ the comments from somebody that is attempting to troll them. You're hopelessly uninformed about the sheer quantity of messages that a harasser can send. Modern Internet trolling easily reaches ddos levels and services make blocking harassing users harder than it should be.
    - boyaka 12y ago
      I agree. I am not a very social person and haven't been on the receiving end of these situations. I have encountered plenty of trolls and have had no problem ignoring them, but I suppose the trolling can reach a level where that is impossible on certain platforms.
RobertKerans 12y ago
Freedom of speech surely isn't as simple as being able to say whatever you want to say, given that certain things (implied threats, say) will infringe upon the freedom of others.
DanBC 12y ago
"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.
- oneeyedpigeon 12y ago
  The most worrying thing about hate speech today is that time and time again it's in response to people, usually women, campaigning for gender equality, and almost always takes the form of violent sexual threats. There really is a concerted effort taking place to try to prevent women from having their say, and it's sickening.
  - foolrush 12y ago
    This point illustrates that the discourse is complex and flows into a good number of other equally toxic positions of privilege and hegemonic power. It would be quite interesting to see a breakdown of death, rape, and violent threats based on a victim's gender, race, and other such factors.
- diminoten 12y ago
  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.
EliRivers 12y ago
How about deliberately hurting and frightening people for no reason other than your own entertainment? I can't see that we should privilege deliberately hurting people for your own entertainment just because the weapon being used is words.
adventured 12y ago
No, it's an extreme net detriment to freedom. Laws like this never stop with the initial effort, they get used, manipulated, and pushed even further. Typically they end up being used to justify other totalitarian laws that further restrict individual liberty. Supposedly it's a law attempting to outlaw bullying; it's actually a law meant to dramatically curb personal freedom. It's like the FBI claiming they need access to your phone - everyone's phone - to stop pedophiles. It's nothing but a ruse to curtail liberty.

grimtrigger 12y ago

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

arethuza 12y ago
There is the Malicious Communications Act 1988: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Malicious_Communications_Act_1988 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Malicious_Communications_Act_19... 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#Malicious_communications http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Communications_Act_2003#Malicio... The latter has had a lot of criticism: http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2012/apr/27/law-criminalisng-offensive-twitter-use http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2012/apr/27/law-cri...

carsongross 12y ago

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

hga 12y ago
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 12y ago
  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-troll-dead-dad-olympics-london-2012_n_1720838.html http://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/2012/07/30/tom-daley-twitter... "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 12y ago
    Exactly - that part of the Wikipedia page I linked to should really be updated to point that out.

sremani 12y ago

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.

deleted 12y ago
[deleted]
ASneakyFox 12y ago
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.

adventured 12y ago

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.

pjc50 12y ago
We're quite capable of seeing it, and it has been worse in the recent past (especially relating to Northern Ireland); but this sort of stuff is also popular with a large chunk of the public.
tim333 12y ago
>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 12y ago
  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 12y ago
    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 12y ago
      this tells you what and when, not why. straight from Hitler: "To prevent this terror," that's the justification he repeats.

emocakes 12y ago

Ridiculous

dobbsbob 12y ago

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_Lipstadt http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Irving_v_Penguin_Books_and_Lips... 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.

deleted 12y ago

[deleted]

pmoriarty 12y ago

"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"?