Trolls --- You have been warned!

[shamrockflyer 647]

I'm totally against cyber bullying but I wouldn't call cyber bullies Trolls. In my eyes trolls are people that sit at their computer that have nothing better to do than to try and annoy someone by saying the most dumb things. 

 

Two years in prison is a bit OTT, how they are going to patrol the internet and find these "trolls" is another matter. I think I'll refrain from posting anything on the internet before they arrest me for speaking my own mind to someone. All these new laws about the safe side of the internet are a bit over the top and should really be thought through. Free speech is being threatened because some people don't know the difference between bullying someone and telling the truth/speaking their own mind. 

[BrianT 54]

This change to sentencing isn't about calling people names on Forums it's more about the threats and hatred that some people have endured from a mindless few on social media. It's all very well having a heated debate on here and the odd bit of name calling is only to be expected.

 

What is unacceptable are threats of violence to others.

In a recent case a "celebs" daughter was subjected to threats of rape on Twitter, because the moron's that made the threats didn't agree with comments that the "celeb" made on TV.

 

The biggest problem with this change is the use of the word Troll. If the threats had been made in person you wouldn't be called a troll. Those of us who use forums and other forms of social media use the word troll as Ciaran has mentioned above to describe them as "people that sit at their computer that have nothing better to do than to try and annoy someone by saying the most dumb things" The best thing you can do with them is just ignore them ans they will go away or eventually grow up. 

 

There are other words to describe those that make threats of violence to people such as the one I've described above but I'll refrain from posting them here for obvious reasons  

[vololiberista 205]

This change to sentencing isn't about calling people names on Forums it's more about the threats and hatred that some people have endured from a mindless few on social media. It's all very well having a heated debate on here and the odd bit of name calling is only to be expected.

 

What is unacceptable are threats of violence to others.

In a recent case a "celebs" daughter was subjected to threats of rape on Twitter, because the moron's that made the threats didn't agree with comments that the "celeb" made on TV.

 

The biggest problem with this change is the use of the word Troll. If the threats had been made in person you wouldn't be called a troll. Those of us who use forums and other forms of social media use the word troll as Ciaran has mentioned above to describe them as "people that sit at their computer that have nothing better to do than to try and annoy someone by saying the most dumb things" The best thing you can do with them is just ignore them ans they will go away or eventually grow up. 

 

There are other words to describe those that make threats of violence to people such as the one I've described above but I'll refrain from posting them here for obvious reasons  

Yes, but it's people sitting at their computer or fiddling with their mobile on twitter or facebook making these threats. So yes trolls is if you like is an encompassing word specific for internet abuse.

[BrianT 54]

Yes, but it's people sitting at their computer or fiddling with their mobile on twitter or facebook making these threats. So yes trolls is if you like is an encompassing word specific for internet abuse.

But there is a marked difference between causing disruption to a thread by deliberately being aggravating, and threatening to cause bodily harm to somebody. The change in law is aimed at the latter not the former. We as a group tend to call the annoying one's Trolls.

it wasn't that long ago that if you came on here just trying to disrupt a perfectly good thread you were known as a WUM (wind up merchant) as that phrase probably didn't work across borders it's developed into Troll.

As I said at the beginning there is a big difference between the two. The law is aimed at catching those that make threats or commit libellous acts not those who choose to be disruptive. 

As the Oxford English still defines Troll as an ugly cave dwelling creature then I'm afraid your headline Trolls --- You have been warned is slightly misleading and really doesn't tell the full story. I'm sure you weren't trying to be misleading when you made the post but as you can see from some of the replies trying to enforce what I call a troll is not only impossible but a complete waste of everybody's time. clamping down on the Violent libellous one's however is long overdue. Maybe we should invent a new printable name for the violent/libellous one's

[dmwalker 603]

Just for the record, the phrase used in the proposed legislation is "Sending letters etc with intent to cause distress or anxiety"

[vololiberista 205]

But there is a marked difference between causing disruption to a thread by deliberately being aggravating, and threatening to cause bodily harm to somebody. The change in law is aimed at the latter not the former. We as a group tend to call the annoying one's Trolls.

it wasn't that long ago that if you came on here just trying to disrupt a perfectly good thread you were known as a WUM (wind up merchant) as that phrase probably didn't work across borders it's developed into Troll.

As I said at the beginning there is a big difference between the two. The law is aimed at catching those that make threats or commit libellous acts not those who choose to be disruptive. 

As the Oxford English still defines Troll as an ugly cave dwelling creature then I'm afraid your headline Trolls --- You have been warned is slightly misleading and really doesn't tell the full story. I'm sure you weren't trying to be misleading when you made the post but as you can see from some of the replies trying to enforce what I call a troll is not only impossible but a complete waste of everybody's time. clamping down on the Violent libellous one's however is long overdue. Maybe we should invent a new printable name for the violent/libellous one's

I'm afraid that nowadays all the libellous acts and threats that are internet related and spread on social media by persons operating connective devices-- those persons are referred to as trolls. So the thread title is correct. The title is not misleading at all except perhaps for trolls themselves!!

[LukeB98 5]

BrianT is on track, I believe.

 

This isn't talking about your average forum troller. I wouldn't classify what the BBC are calling trolls as trolls. They're a bit stupid anyway to send death threats and other really stupid things with their real name tagged to it... (I'm not condoning threatening people just because you are anonymous though).

 

When I first saw this on the news I immediately thought something was wrong with the way they branded them a trolls...

[mgh 89]

Isn't only the BBC using the word, it's the word  generally used  in the UK.

[BrianT 54]

I'm afraid that nowadays all the libellous acts and threats that are internet related and spread on social media by persons operating connective devices-- those persons are referred to as trolls. So the thread title is correct. The title is not misleading at all except perhaps for trolls themselves!!

That is exactly what I am talking about:- libellous acts and threats. are what this law is about not simple name calling and annoying behaviour that exits on all forms of social media. They are what are more commonly referred to as Trolls.

Regardless of how you make a threat or a libellous comment it should carry the same punishment the big difference is that by doing it on Twitter or Facebook the abuse is seen by many more people and then more of the (still haven't thought of a polite word for them) join in. Most of them stupidly believe they are hiding behind some form of anonymity and would never have the balls to make these threats face to face.

​I'm afraid I'm turning into a boring old F**T as I think social media is one of the most unsociable things ever invented. In my day if you wanted to talk to someone you phoned them up or you went to see them. Now people gauge their friends by number of people that "know" them on Social Media even if they've never met them!

Isn't only the BBC using the word, it's the word  generally used  in the UK.

agreed by the time this law is ratified they will need to be clearer about what a "Troll" and what constitutes trolism is (if that's even a word) otherwise they will end up with egg on their face

[fuelpumps 3]

You wanna see real trolls? Go visit Haaretz facebook page, or jerusalem post facebook page, nothing has come close

[HiFlyer 9,358]

 

 

agreed by the time this law is ratified they will need to be clearer about what a "Troll" and what constitutes trolism is (if that's even a word) otherwise they will end up with egg on their face

 

Or they will leave it exactly as-is, and it will be interpreted all up and down the scale, based on nearly random factors of individual judgement until things get ridiculous enough to force a change.

[vololiberista 205]

More from the Beeb

http://www.bbc.com/news/blogs-magazine-monitor-29686865

[mgh 89]

agreed by the time this law is ratified they will need to be clearer about what a "Troll" and what constitutes trolism is (if that's even a word) otherwise they will end up with egg on their face

 

No one will end up with egg  on their faces. That law is already defined - only the sentence is being inceased:

[BrianT 54]

No one will end up with egg  on their faces. That law is already defined - only the sentence is being inceased:

In England and Wales, the Malicious Communications Act 1988covers comments that cause "distress or anxiety"

the Communications Act 2003 which applies across the United Kingdom. It covers threats but often overlaps with the 1988 act

then there's the Protection from Harassment Act 1997, which deals with stalking both on and offline

 

I would argue that having 3 separate acts which can all cross over each other is hardly defined. 

More from the Beeb

http://www.bbc.com/news/blogs-magazine-monitor-29686865

The last paragraph in this article sums it up really

 

"The problem is a lack of resources, and the need for further education of the public and police about what constitutes an offence."

[HiFlyer 9,358]

I would argue that having 3 separate acts which can all cross over each other is hardly defined. 

 

Which is what I was getting at from the first. Existing laws pretty much have it covered, but you see this sort of thing when some sensationalized incidents, usually fairly recently, cause legislatures to come up with this type of "look, we're are taking it seriously and now we're going to get really tough" type of law.

 

Which usually just trips over existing law if not crafted very carefully, and generally makes a mess where interpretation can be a nightmare.

 

Get ready for people to get locked up for some very iffy things. 

 

Fortunately, overworked judges everywhere generally toss the really silly cases. Unless their hands get tied by mandatory sentences.......