[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!

[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.

[fruit_cake]

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

[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.

[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

[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

[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.

[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 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

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.

[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 .....

[arista]

Originally Posted by Jesus.H.Christ

What's next? Thought crimes?

No

[Omah]

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.

The law states :

Defamation 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)

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.

[arista]

Originally Posted by Jesus.H.Christ

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.

Time will tell.



Jordan is Still a Tramp Slut.

[billy123]

I think a lot of people have misinterpreted this ruling it doesnt mean anybody will get in trouble for being abusive or hateful towards anybody it only concerns people that post things that break the law i.e. racist comments,threats of violence towards somebody and threats of theft or murder etc.
Laws that we are all already subject to the only change is the role of website operators being obliged to co-operate with handing over logs detailing ip addresss and details of the offending material.

[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.

[GypsyGoth]

I think this is to stop the families, who have had someone die, being harassed.

[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.