[Omah]

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/technology-18404621

Websites will soon to be forced to identify people who have posted defamatory messages online.

New government proposals say victims have a right to know who is behind malicious messages without the need for costly legal battles.

Last week, a British woman won a court order forcing Facebook to identify users who had harassed her.

Nicola Brookes had been falsely branded a paedophile and drug dealer by users - known as trolls - on Facebook.

Facebook, which did not contest the order, will now reveal the IP addresses of people who had abused her so she can prosecute them.

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

Complying with requests would afford the website greater protection from being sued in the event of a defamation claim.

"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.

"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."

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

About time .....

Trolls will get their come-uppance .....

[King Gizzard]

Did you hear that scott?

[arista]

Yes Makes Good Sense
but Facebook is slow to help
so everyone will be watching them.

[Marc]

Finally Scott can be named.

But in all seriousness this is a good thing!

[arista]

Originally Posted by Marc

Finally Scott can be named.

But in all seriousness this is a good thing!

Yes
of course on TIBB they never go that far
as they are deleted
making this a Model site.

Originally Posted by arista

Yes
of course on TIBB they never go that far
as they are deleted
making this a Model site.

FM's can say very derogatory things about housemates/celebrities, just not other fm's. TIBB would also have to change it's own rules to meet these standards.

TIBB is very strict, so if a site that is already is doing a lot to prevent anything bad being posted (like a joke in serious debates), then this will have far reaching consequences for the internet as a whole.

[arista]

Originally Posted by Jesus.H.Christ

FM's can say very derogatory things about housemates/celebrities, just not other fm's. TIBB would also have to change it's own rules to meet these standards.

TIBB is very strict, so if a site that is already is doing a lot to prevent anything bad being posted (like a joke in serious debates), then this will have far reaching consequences for the internet as a whole.

Not as Strict as others.

Originally Posted by arista

Not as Strict as others.

I'm not disputing that fact. However, TIBB will still have to change it's rules, so I'm not sure what you are disputing.

[lostalex]

Disgusting affront to the the freedom of speech and freedom of the internet. Europe has very disturbing ideas about the freedom of speech.


This is just as disgusting as the super injunctions.

If you put yourself online then you open yourself up to criticism. If you can't handle it then don't go online. You don't have the RIGHT to not be offended. Freedom of speech means the right to offend. No one is forcing you to go online and read peoples comments.

Very disturbing.

[Omah]

Originally Posted by lostalex

Disgusting affront to the the freedom of speech and freedom of the internet. Europe has very disturbing ideas about the freedom of speech.

Freedom of speech means the right to offend.

Very disturbing.

This side of the water, we tend to have a more civilised view.

Last week, a British woman won a court order forcing Facebook to identify users who had harassed her.

Nicola Brookes had been falsely branded a paedophile and drug dealer by users - known as trolls - on Facebook.

Facebook, which did not contest the order, will now reveal the IP addresses of people who had abused her so she can prosecute them.

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

Justice Secretary Ken Clarke said the measures would mean an end to "scurrilous rumour and allegation" being posted online without fear of adequate punishment.

In English Law :

Defamation—also called calumny, vilification, traducement, slander (for transitory statements), and libel (for written, broadcast, or otherwise published words)—is the communication of a statement that makes a claim, expressly stated or implied to be factual, that may give an individual, business, product, group, government, or nation a negative image. This can be also any disparaging statement made by one person about another, which is communicated or published, whether true or false, depending on legal state. In Common Law it is usually a requirement that this claim be false and that the publication is communicated to someone other than the person defamed (the claimant).

A person who harms another's reputation may be referred to as a "famacide", "defamer", or "slanderer". The Latin phrase famosus libellus means a libelous writing.

So the addition to the Defamation Bill merely adds elements of the internet to the list of "outlets" which can be prosecuted by the individual to protect their rights

[lostalex]

Originally Posted by Omah

Very disturbing.

This side of the water, we tend to have a more civilised view.

censorship is civilized? really? Well i guess if you think fascism is civilized...

There is nothing civilized about restricting speech.

[Omah]

Originally Posted by lostalex

censorship is civilized? really? Well i guess if you think fascism is civilized...

There is nothing civilized about restricting speech.

Yeah, as I understand it, the Southern States of the USA are the most democratic and tolerant regimes in the world - no repession, free expression, black or white, you're in the right .....

[Black Dagger]

Originally Posted by lostalex

Disgusting affront to the the freedom of speech and freedom of the internet. Europe has very disturbing ideas about the freedom of speech.

This is just as disgusting as the super injunctions.

If you put yourself online then you open yourself up to criticism. If you can't handle it then don't go online. You don't have the RIGHT to not be offended. Freedom of speech means the right to offend. No one is forcing you to go online and read peoples comments.

Very disturbing.

There is a massive difference between freedom of speech and let's say somebody trolling an R.I.P page for example.

What's next? Thought crimes?

[arista]

Originally Posted by Jesus.H.Christ

What's next? Thought crimes?

No

[Niamh.]

Originally Posted by lostalex

Disgusting affront to the the freedom of speech and freedom of the internet. Europe has very disturbing ideas about the freedom of speech.


This is just as disgusting as the super injunctions.

If you put yourself online then you open yourself up to criticism. If you can't handle it then don't go online. You don't have the RIGHT to not be offended. Freedom of speech means the right to offend. No one is forcing you to go online and read peoples comments.

Very disturbing.

I think in some cases, like the one in the article, then naming and prosecuting these people is warranted, there is a big difference between free speech and spreading revolting lies about a person and defaming their character.

Putting yourself up for criticism is one thing but being labelled a paedophile for someone elses entertainment is quite another.

[lostalex]

Originally Posted by Niamh.

I think in some cases, like the one in the article, then naming and prosecuting these people is warranted, there is a big difference between free speech and spreading revolting lies about a person and defaming their character.

Putting yourself up for criticism is one thing but being labelled a paedophile for someone elses entertainment is quite another.

being called names is not a good reason to criminalize speech.

Should i be able to have every one arrested who ever says something homophobic? why is it only celebrities and people in the public eye who seem to get this special treatment? this isn't just about freedom of speech it's also about elitism. Just like the super injunctions.

We live in a SOCIETY. you don't have a right to privacy if you put yourself in the public eye. No one is forced to be in the public eye, no one is forced to have a facebook account or a twitter account. When you put yourself out into society you also put yourself open to criticism and ridicule.

this is just as much about the class system in europe as it is about the freedom of speech.

When's the last time a court defended some working class person who was called an ASBO or a chav online?? WHy is it only the RIch people who seem to be getting this kind of defense from the government??

[Niamh.]

Originally Posted by lostalex

being called names is not a good reason to criminalize speech.

Should i be able to have every one arrested who ever says something homophobic? why is it only celebrities and people in the public eye who seem to get this special treatment? this isn't just about freedom of speech it's also about elitism. Just like the super injunctions.

We live in a SOCIETY. you don't have a right to privacy if you put yourself in the public eye. No one is forced to be in the public eye, no one is forced to have a facebook account or a twitter account. When you put yourself out into society you also put yourself open to criticism and ridicule.

this is just as much about the class system in europe as it is about the freedom of speech.

When's the last time a court defended some working class person who was called an ASBO or a chav online?? WHy is it only the RIch people who seem to be getting this kind of defense from the government??

Well, say what you want, but I don't class harassment of people for no apparent reason other than the fact that these people get some sort of kicks from it, as free speech, in fact it's a mockery of free speech. People should be able to have Facebook accounts without the threat of some bored stranger deciding to harass them for no reason.

[lostalex]

Originally Posted by Niamh.

Well, say what you want, but I don't class harassment of people for no apparent reason other than the fact that these people get some sort of kicks from it, as free speech, in fact it's a mockery of free speech. People should be able to have Facebook accounts without the threat of some bored stranger deciding to harass them for no reason.

i'm sure they would disagree that they said it for no reason. And even if they did say it for no reason, even if they did say it just for the Lulz, then that makes this whole thing even more ridiculous.
Yur banning free speech cause someone said something ridiculous? toughen the eff up.

If someone reports her to the cops calling her a pedophile that is already illegal, making a false report is already illegal. The laws don't need any changing.

[fruit_cake]

I'm not sure how I feel about this, I can see both sides of the argument and both have obvious problems.

[Suze]

Hope this isn't a daftish question. But there are going to be underage trolls. In those instances will they still be held accoutable to a certain degree? Or will parents and guardians have to take full responsibility for the actions instead?

[arista]

Originally Posted by Suze

Hope this isn't a daftish question. But there are going to be underage trolls. In those instances will they still be held accoutable to a certain degree? Or will parents and guardians have to take full responsibility for the actions instead?

Both

[Omah]

Originally Posted by Suze

Hope this isn't a daftish question. But there are going to be underage trolls. In those instances will they still be held accoutable to a certain degree? Or will parents and guardians have to take full responsibility for the actions instead?

It's a good question ..... I don't think there's a specific answer to that one yet .....

[Scarlett.]

I've noticed a lot of celebrities going on about so called "trolls" lately, and I'm not talking about the people who are rude to them on Twitter, I mean the people who go on forums and say they don't like someone - That's apparently 'trolling' now, even though it's not directly thrown into the celebrities faces, they go out of their way to find it.

[arista]

Originally Posted by Chewy

I've noticed a lot of celebrities going on about so called "trolls" lately, and I'm not talking about the people who are rude to them on Twitter, I mean the people who go on forums and say they don't like someone - That's apparently 'trolling' now, even though it's not directly thrown into the celebrities faces, they go out of their way to find it.

Like Jordan is a Tramp Slut?
on SkyLivingHD