Internet trolls will now face prosecution

[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.
www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-4808016/Internet-trolls-treated-proactive-approach.html

[Dominic]

This is ****ing tragic :umm2:

[Denver]

This is ****ing tragic :umm2:

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

[JTM45]

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]

:worry: poor LT

[Liberty4eva]

:worry: 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.

https://s-media-cache-ak0.pinimg.com/originals/9d/25/f8/9d25f808ad41a11b45cdd9cf51723833.jpg

[Kizzy]

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?

[Crimson Dynamo]

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

[Underscore]

Good

[Liberty4eva]

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.

[Crimson Dynamo]

just ban twitter


problem solved

[Underscore]

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.

[Crimson Dynamo]

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]

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?

[Crimson Dynamo]

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 :shrug:

[Kizzy]

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 :shrug:

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

[Liberty4eva]

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]

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]

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]

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.]

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

[Crimson Dynamo]

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

[Crimson Dynamo]

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

[Brillopad]

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?

There is something seriously wrong with people like that. They need tracking down and possibly locking up for the protection of the general public.

[Crimson Dynamo]

I would imagine every celeb who is on TV gets horrid abuse on a daily basis via Twitter?

[Niamh.]

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

Oh I know but I do think it will be a bit of a deterrent atleast

[Denver]

I would imagine every celeb who is on TV gets horrid abuse on a daily basis via Twitter?

There is abuse then plain right evilness attacking a disabled boy unable to fight back or shut it out

[bots]

Here is a question, should it be against the law for someone to vocalise their thoughts and opinions in the privacy of their own home? Where does one draw the line, should it be against the law to have anything other than pure and harmless thoughts?

I don't disagree necessarily with some troll behaviour being made illegal, but i do wonder where all this is going to end up.

You may say i'm exaggerating or whatever, but we are only a short period away from linking thought to computer interaction, its going to become a real issue very soon.

[Crimson Dynamo]

I think what is the problem is that say Twitter has allowed people to publish what they say in the privacy of their own homes and its just taking time for people to realise that "wait, but that is not ok because everyone can see it"!

[Kizzy]

Here is a question, should it be against the law for someone to vocalise their thoughts and opinions in the privacy of their own home? Where does one draw the line, should it be against the law to have anything other than pure and harmless thoughts?

I don't disagree necessarily with some troll behaviour being made illegal, but i do wonder where all this is going to end up.

You may say i'm exaggerating or whatever, but we are only a short period away from linking thought to computer interaction, its going to become a real issue very soon.

This is not the issue in question, there is a world of difference between having a conversation in your house expressing an opinion and messaging a person directly stating I am going to do 'xyz' to you, can you not see this?

It's not even nearly comparable :/

[Marsh.]

Here is a question, should it be against the law for someone to vocalise their thoughts and opinions in the privacy of their own home? Where does one draw the line, should it be against the law to have anything other than pure and harmless thoughts?

I don't disagree necessarily with some troll behaviour being made illegal, but i do wonder where all this is going to end up.

You may say i'm exaggerating or whatever, but we are only a short period away from linking thought to computer interaction, its going to become a real issue very soon.
Broadcasting those opinions publicly or sending abuse directly to a person to bully them is not a conversation in the privacy of your home.

Stop purposely acting obtuse.

[Toy Soldier]

TBH I just hope they're sensible about it when it comes to kids / teens, and only pursue something if there is a genuinely vicious / sustained / deliberate attack going on.

Kids and teens do and say stupid things... it not going to help anyone to start dishing out criminal records for it.

I mean, when I was like 15 I guessed the security password on a classmate's hotmail account and saw a bunch of e-mails he'd been sending to various girls across the globe making various wild claims (most popular kid in school, in a band, captain of the football team... etc.) and - naturally - I told all of my friends. And... well... everyone else in our year :umm2: and people mocked the guy relentlessly about it. He went to a teacher and I ended up being pretty thoroughly grilled in the head teacher's office about "hacking" :joker:...

Obviously, not my proudest moment but I was a daft 15 year old, and also all of the crap with my mum (the start of her drinking, and losing her career) was going on at home so I just didn't really give a **** about anything at the time or any real perspective.

The authorities getting involved in these things when it's kids is a step too far, in my opinion. I've been on both sides of it tbh; someone at my school made a little chatroom thing that people used to go on, and I remember some "older kids" (18/19 year old sadsacks) coming on and threatening harassing people loads. Though I was all...

https://media.giphy.com/media/26gIOEsGb5mcTiQEw/giphy.gif

And invited them to come to the school and seek me out at break time :laugh:. Because again of the not giving a ****. I was such an arsehole teenager.

But... yeah. Isn't stuff like this all sort of part of being a teen / figuring out the world, and people?

[the truth]

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.

They left have been destroying free speech for decades, apart from hate speeches from fundamental islamists

[Brillopad]

They left have been destroying free speech for decades, apart from hate speeches from fundamental islamists

If that wasn't so true it would be laughable :bawling:

[Beso]

Phone ofcom.

[Marsh.]

Good thing. Abuse isn't accepted in person so it shouldn't be accepted on social media.

Obviously they're referring to bullying, stalking, incessant abuse type situations. Not comments on Holly Willoughhy's weight on Twitter I imagine.

[Shaun]

Hopefully only enforced in extreme and obvious examples of online abuse and harassment.

If someone gets arrested for tweeting "Katy Perry is an evil bitch" then we can worry.

[Crimson Dynamo]

*deletes MailOnline persona

[Marsh.]

*deletes MailOnline persona
Daniella Westbrook is thrilled you will no longer be first in line to comment each time she gets a new nose.

[Denver]

Hopefully only enforced in extreme and obvious examples of online abuse and harassment.

If someone gets arrested for tweeting "Katy Perry is an evil bitch" then we can worry.

Poor Smithy spending the next 5 years behind bars

[Withano]

I'm surprised there was a debate on this. Seems obvious to me; internet trolls need some sort of punishment.

Obviously a common sense approach will need to be implemented, so only the worst or most persistent gets punished, but some people simply exist online just to be a **** to as many victims as possible. They need arresting or fined.

[DemolitionRed]

They left have been destroying free speech for decades, apart from hate speeches from fundamental islamists

You're kidding. There's a bunch of things I'd like to say to you and a few others on here but I'm not allowed. You, for example, can say a bunch of hateful things about women, but if I call you out, I have to be extra careful with how I do that without risking you and others reporting me.

If you hate 'none freedom of speech' what the fcuk are you doing on here?

[Mitchell]

You're ****ed Adam

[Denver]

You're ****ed Adam

I COULDNT GIVE A BASTARD BOLLOCKS ANYWAy

[Crimson Dynamo]

You're kidding. There's a bunch of things I'd like to say to you and a few others on here but I'm not allowed. You, for example, can say a bunch of hateful things about women, but if I call you out, I have to be extra careful with how I do that without risking you and others reporting me.

If you hate 'none freedom of speech' what the fcuk are you doing on here?

please do not undermine the mods and admin who do an excellent job on tibb

[Tozzie]

just ban twitter


problem solved

ban ALL social media, even better.

[Tozzie]

I think there is a big difference between taking the piss out of how someone looks and death threats, death threats should be treat very seriously. Imagine how it would be if everyone was nice to everyone and everyone only had nice things to say about others or everyone agreeing on every single thing on social media. If people can't take criticism they shouldn't be in the public eye. Death threats however is a whole other story. I would welcome serious repercussions for that.

[sungrass]

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.

Im suprised 1984 by George Orwell hasnt been banned?

This is thought crime!!

Will this only work one way? will it include YOUTUBE comments which are the worse...

[sungrass]

I think there is a big difference between taking the piss out of how someone looks and death threats, death threats should be treat very seriously. Imagine how it would be if everyone was nice to everyone and everyone only had nice things to say about others or everyone agreeing on every single thing on social media. If people can't take criticism they shouldn't be in the public eye. Death threats however is a whole other story. I would welcome serious repercussions for that.

yes this I agree with - any threat - is crossing the line - however giving trolls an outlet probably has saved lives?

[Marsh.]

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.
You're overexaggerating.

We have laws against actual abuse in the real world. No reason why it can't exist on social media.

Nobody's saying anything about hurting people's feelings. We're talking abuse and harassment.

[Wizard.]

Poor Will, jailed at 18.

[Denver]

He is only 12

[Smithy]

Poor Smithy spending the next 5 years behind bars

I have never done this tyvm :nono:


….other members on this site though :eyes: :eyes: :eyes: