[Denver]

Internet trolls will face prosecution for hate-filled online rants in the same way they would if they had abused people in the streets under new legal guidelines.

Hate crimes perpetrated on social media will be taken as seriously as ‘offline’ offences as part of a clampdown on unacceptable cyber behaviour, it will be announced today.

The Crown Prosecution Service said bullies will be treated with the ‘same robust and proactive approach used with offline offending’.

CPS policy statements have been updated to take account of the mounting number of cases sparked by abuse in cyber space.

Alison Saunders, the Director of Public Prosecutions, said: ‘Hate crime has a corrosive effect on our society and that is why it is a priority area for the CPS.

‘It can affect entire communities, forcing people to change their way of life and live in fear.’

She added: ‘These documents take account of the current breadth and context of offending to provide prosecutors with the best possible chance of achieving justice for victims.

‘They also let victims and witnesses know what they should expect from us.’

The guidance for prosecutors comes after MPs revealed how they suffered a horrific spate of anonymous personal abuse online during the election campaign.

Community groups monitoring anti-Semitic and Islamophobic abuse also report that a significant proportion of incidents involve the internet.

The revised documents cover different strands of hate crime - racist and religious; disability; and homophobic, biphobic and transphobic.

They say: ‘Hate crime can be perpetrated online or offline, or there can be a pattern of behaviour that includes both.

‘The internet and social media in particular have provided new platforms for offending behaviour.’

The CPS will also recognise children ‘may not appreciate the potential harm and seriousness of their communications’.

Prosecutors should also understand the changing nature of platforms and their policies for taking down material, while being alert to the need to identify ‘originators’ as well as ‘amplifiers or disseminators’, according to the documents.

The CPS emphasised that it has always considered each case on its individual merits and prosecutes offences, whether committed online or offline, where there is sufficient evidence and it is in the public interest.

Elsewhere, the policy documents acknowledge that victims of biphobic hate crime have different experiences and needs to those affected by homophobic and transphobic offences.

The CPS also said it recognises it has a responsibility to actively remove barriers to justice for disabled victims and witnesses.

There was a surge in reports following the EU referendum in June 2016, while figures released earlier this month show forces registered a spike around the terrorist attacks that hit the UK earlier this year.

In 2015/16 the CPS completed a record 15,442 hate crime prosecutions.

The conviction rate across all strands of hate crime increased from 82.9 per cent in 2014/15 to 83.2 pre cent in 2015/16.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/arti...-approach.html

[Dominic]

This is ****ing tragic

[Denver]

Originally Posted by Dominic

This is ****ing tragic

How? you think people should be allowed to make death threats online and get away with it?

[JTM45]

Originally Posted by Adam.

How? you think people should be allowed to make death threats online and get away with it?

Sadly some people confuse 'freedom of speech' with freedom to make people's lives hell to the extent that they don't want to live any longer. Usually the same bunch who deny that there is really such a thing as 'hate speech', even if their words incite others to physically harm or even kill someone.

I would imagine it'll be difficult to enforce these new policies but it's a start at least and many of these kinda' people aren't the smartest so they probably will be easier to catch. Good thing too!

[Toy Soldier]

poor LT

[Liberty4eva]

Originally Posted by Toy Soldier

poor LT

Theoretically I shouldn't be worried. We still have a first amendment (and a second should things ever get really, really tyrannical). Bullying is morally wrong but if someone is getting bullied online and it bothers them they don't have to be online.

[Kizzy]

Originally Posted by Liberty4eva

Theoretically I shouldn't be worried. We still have a first amendment (and a second should things ever get really, really tyrannical). Bullying is morally wrong but if someone is getting bullied online and it bothers them they don't have to be online.

So they should accept the abuse? Why, it wouldn't be acceptable to hound people in the street, with that fuzzy logic you could say they should stay indoors, why is it ok online?

[LeatherTrumpet]

Good luck police catching a internet cafe 14 year old in Thailand slagging off Charlotte Church

[Underscore]

Good

[Liberty4eva]

Originally Posted by Kizzy

So they should accept the abuse? Why, it wouldn't be acceptable to hound people in the street, with that fuzzy logic you could say they should stay indoors, why is it ok online?

Being abused in person where the person can potentially be hit or threatened with being hit is totally different than being in your house talking to someone hundreds of miles away through media. Pretending they are the same is silly, Kizzy, and I really don't have to say more than that.

[LeatherTrumpet]

just ban twitter


problem solved

[Underscore]

Originally Posted by LeatherTrumpet

just ban twitter


problem solved

Twitter > Facebook ngl

[Kizzy]

The only people who will be dead against this will be trolls, for everyone else especially if you have been a victim it will be great news.

[LeatherTrumpet]

Originally Posted by Kizzy

The only people who will be dead against this will be trolls, for everyone else especially if you have been a victim it will be great news.

Yes I would imagine the Police will be jumping with joy

[Kizzy]

Originally Posted by LeatherTrumpet

Yes I would imagine the Police will be jumping with joy

A crime is a crime, threats are taken seriously as they should be what's the issue?

[LeatherTrumpet]

Originally Posted by Kizzy

A crime is a crime, threats are taken seriously as they should be what's the issue?

well you often tell us that we dont have enough police

now they have to be looking at twitter etc 24/7?

They are not exactly very good at dealing with burglary

[Kizzy]

Originally Posted by LeatherTrumpet

well you often tell us that we dont have enough police

now they have to be looking at twitter etc 24/7?

They are not exactly very good at dealing with burglary

And that is true, the internet is an area which is exploited by predators , it has to be addressed.

[Liberty4eva]

Originally Posted by Kizzy

The only people who will be dead against this will be trolls, for everyone else especially if you have been a victim it will be great news.

Once government gets the power to prosecute people for hurting other people's feelings, where is the limit to their power? It enhances government power to solve a problem that does not require government. If someone is "abused" online maybe the solution is for them to get a thicker skin than going to Big Brother for a solution.

[Denver]

Originally Posted by Liberty4eva

Once government gets the power to prosecute people for hurting other people's feelings, where is the limit to their power? It enhances government power to solve a problem that does not require government. If someone is "abused" online maybe the solution is for them to get a thicker skin than going to Big Brother for a solution.

Lets take into account Katie Prices son Harvey.

Do you think that family deserve the tweets they get on a daily basis taking fun of his disabilities and going as far as saying he should be put down?

[Kizzy]

Originally Posted by Liberty4eva

Being abused in person where the person can potentially be hit or threatened with being hit is totally different than being in your house talking to someone hundreds of miles away through media. Pretending they are the same is silly, Kizzy, and I really don't have to say more than that.

Then why are there harassment laws? You cannot threaten and/or intimidate people without it being taken seriously.

Who's to say they are 100s of miles away? as with most abusers it is as likely to be someone known to you.

[Kizzy]

Originally Posted by Liberty4eva

Once government gets the power to prosecute people for hurting other people's feelings, where is the limit to their power? It enhances government power to solve a problem that does not require government. If someone is "abused" online maybe the solution is for them to get a thicker skin than going to Big Brother for a solution.

Threats to kill are an issue whether online, by phone or in person, why is that so hard to understand?

[Niamh.]

Originally Posted by Kizzy

So they should accept the abuse? Why, it wouldn't be acceptable to hound people in the street, with that fuzzy logic you could say they should stay indoors, why is it ok online?

Yeah or a kid gets bullied in school, then he should not go to school lol

[LeatherTrumpet]

Originally Posted by Niamh.

Yeah or a kid gets bullied in school, then he should not go to school lol

yes but even in that example bullying still is rife and happens at every school despite guidelines and laws as it is hard to prove

[LeatherTrumpet]

I think it will be a nightmare to police, not saying it should not be but it will be a nightmare

[Denver]

Incidents will only be taken further if reported with sufficient evidence