It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

internet trolling become crime in UK. 2years prison for offenders.

page: 3
16
<< 1  2    4 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Oct, 19 2014 @ 06:32 AM
link   
a reply to: Cobaltic1978



If,like in the case of the McCann's someone states that they feel it was their own fault for leaving their children alone, then they are entitled to their opinion. This isn't trolling, it's expressing an opinion. Even if they state they wish something bad on you, that's their opinion, that's not trolling, unless they state that they are going to do something bad to you. Then a threat has been made and the police should become involved.


It's really about frequency and level of harassment. Someone's 'right to an opinion' doesn't transcend someone's right to peace and privacy. Should someone choose to write an offensive comment to another person, it's likely to be okay. If that person chooses to repeatedly make offensive comments to the same person/people, shouldn't there be a point where the target's quality of life is being deliberately being diminished?

The psychological damage caused by a high frequency of negative comments is well established. It can be enough to drive people to suicide without ever uttering a single threat.

Like a lot of people, I'm very much against the erosions of freedom of speech in the West. At the same time, I'm 100% against nasty, vindictive individuals pissing all over the lives of others.




posted on Oct, 19 2014 @ 06:34 AM
link   
a reply to: Cobaltic1978

Erosion of freedom in general. We are being squeezed in a vice between the left and right. The goal as always is not the good of the people. The goal is protection of the elite and the status quo.



posted on Oct, 19 2014 @ 06:51 AM
link   
a reply to: Kandinsky

The thing is, if you decide to use social networking for any purposes you have to accept that a certain number of individuals are going to disagree with you. If they continuously goad you to the point where you feel it is becoming a personal vendetta, you have the option to block that person from being able to comment, do you not? Just as ATS has the right to remove any member for infringing the T&C's of the site.

People should realise that not everybody is good in this world, some people will never be, no matter how much you think you can change them. Do we really need a law to combat this?

If they go out of their way to track down your e-mail address and send you messages that you find offensive, or obtain your phone number to undertake similar harassment, then there are already laws in place to protect people.

I will await the first person to be charged under this law, just because they disagree with what our beloved politicians convey on their social networking site. Then I feel we will see the real reason.

ETA- just watched Sky News and the Ex Metropolitan Police Commissioner Sir Iain Blair, claims that internet trolling has become the most challenging problem the Police are facing. Really? So are they lying about the terrorist threat from home grown Jihadists? What about the cover up of child abuse by top politicians and people of influence in the U.K? You really couldn't make it up.


edit on 19/10/14 by Cobaltic1978 because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 19 2014 @ 06:58 AM
link   

originally posted by: Kandinsky

It's really about frequency and level of harassment. Someone's 'right to an opinion' doesn't transcend someone's right to peace and privacy. Should someone choose to write an offensive comment to another person, it's likely to be okay. If that person chooses to repeatedly make offensive comments to the same person/people, shouldn't there be a point where the target's quality of life is being deliberately being diminished?

The psychological damage caused by a high frequency of negative comments is well established. It can be enough to drive people to suicide without ever uttering a single threat.


Lets see, slash wrists or block Facebook/change e-mail/phone number? People are so unwilling to detach from the fantasy that is the internet. I understand real life bullying, and it has deadly consequences, think Columbine. But does no one see the chasm we cross when digital threats = prison? Sticks and stones for words. How can you not see, if someone is guilty of bullying the real crime would be to kidnap them for 2 years they will never get back or rightly recover.

You probably want to put me in prison for torrents.



posted on Oct, 19 2014 @ 07:05 AM
link   
a reply to: Cobaltic1978

The laws can be found on the CPS site under Harassment and Stalking and they've been around for between 16 and 10 years. Seems to me like a lot of cyber-mischief has occurred in that period and it's anyone's guess how effective the police and CPS have been applying the existing laws?

This current news is about extending the sentence from 6 months to 2 years (as Disraeli has emphasised).

Aside from some absurd cases, like the Twitter guy who threatened to blow up a plane if it was late, it's hard to see how much of a difference the extended sentencing will make. It's just Cameron and his bald face playing the big man again...

I think we're also talking at cross purposes. You're thinking of general rudeness and snipes whereas I'm thinking of incidents where individuals/groups have their lives negatively impacted for the 'lulz.'



posted on Oct, 19 2014 @ 07:13 AM
link   

originally posted by: Kandinsky
and it's anyone's guess how effective the police and CPS have been applying the existing laws?

I found some stats, if this link works properly.
Trials and convictions 2006-10
Crucial points, number of both going up year by year.
2010, trials 694, convictions 498.
These totals don't specify which offences were internet, and which other communications.

Hansard 5 Dec 2011

edit on 19-10-2014 by DISRAELI because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 19 2014 @ 07:14 AM
link   
a reply to: nrd101

Digital threats differ in seriousness don't they? Whatever you were arrested for might have been innocuous or it might have been over the top - that's your business. But because you feel it was an overreaction on the part of whoever came for you, does not mean that every other posted threat should be ignored.

Actual victims of online abuse should not be shushed and dismissed to allow for the right to be offensive or threatening on the internet.

In this thread, it seems like some members are focused on the value of freedom of speech and overlooking the value of people's right to live in peace. It's possible to focus on both. The worst assholes can face jail and others can be dealt with according to the usual practice of fines or social justice.

You can keep your torrents...I've downloading my own as we speak lol.



posted on Oct, 19 2014 @ 07:19 AM
link   

originally posted by: Kandinsky

I think we're also talking at cross purposes. You're thinking of general rudeness and snipes whereas I'm thinking of incidents where individuals/groups have their lives negatively impacted for the 'lulz.'


Sort of like these feminist gamer women? I just thought that this is an interesting story, that is Gamergate, it is some rather serious cyber-bullying that has cost a magazine an ad contract of 157 million dollars, not to mention these two feminists were forced to flee their homes they were so scared. The synergy here is all too real and palpable for me to believe.




Earlier, the award ceremony’s organizers had received an anonymous e-mail that stated, “A bomb will be detonated at the Game Developers Choice award ceremony tonight unless Anita Sarkeesian’s Ambassador Award is revoked. We estimate the bomb will kill at least a dozen people and injure dozens more. It would be in your best interest to accept our simple request. This is not a joke. You have been warned.” The message was just one example of the many threats that Sarkeesian had received since launching her video series. In 2012, the Times reported that Sarkeesian had been sent images showing video-game characters raping her. Her Wikipedia entry was repeatedly vandalized. One man created a Web game called Beat Up Anita Sarkeesian, in which players could punch Sarkeesian’s image and watch her face become bruised. The violent threats have continued unabated; Sarkeesian fled her home in August after a Twitter user posted her address and threatened to kill her.

Gamergate
I couldn't make this up, to me, its almost like its planned, Idk orchestrated.



posted on Oct, 19 2014 @ 07:22 AM
link   
a reply to: DISRAELI

Thanks Disraeli


Here's are the details for the links-disaffected:



The increasing number of proceedings and convictions are interesting. What percentage might be personal against political and how many represent 'ordinary' people as opposed to the wealthier?



posted on Oct, 19 2014 @ 07:32 AM
link   
a reply to: nrd101

Something like that although my own thoughts focus on normal day-to-day people.

If kids are bullied out of an education or people are pushed into mental ill-health by online harassment, there should be consequences. Common people have less access to the services of solicitors/lawyers.



posted on Oct, 19 2014 @ 07:36 AM
link   
a reply to: Pandaram

So long as this is not used to stop free speech then OK and about time, we have had a raft of Kid's commiting suicide in recent years through being cyber bullied or cyber stalked however I feel this is likely to be used in the UK as just another control mechanism and will not stop the problem at all, indeed when someone has there hand's tied they are likely to fight harder to be free, likewise if you gag them and they have something to say.

Someone mentioned Racism, Racism for racists sake is vile but people have to be able to speek, I myself was once vehemently anti racist but today in britain have seen foreigners flock to my country and in a great many cases rip off our benefits system such as eastern europeans who say they have five or six kids and claim child benefit for them even though they are supposed to be back in there home country and there is no real unforgable proof of there existance, they are in the minority but they are a serious problem for our benefits system, I used to be anti racist but today there are Somali's, south asian and other islamic immigrant's who have taken over the town of luton, the town of burnley and many others as well as whole inner city's, london our capital now boast the the ethnic British are now the minority there and they are allowed to say what ever they want including calling for us to be beheaded and using the excuse that it is quoting there religious text while we can not say the same thing back without some liberal idiot jumping down our throats and accusing us of racism.

SO today I a part Maori, Part Jewish, Part Irish and Scot but mainly genuine English with Ethnic British ancestry going back to at least the Saxon age and beyond (as the Saxons married the native british and genetics show that while many English have Danish and German ancestry on there male side they are Celtic on there mother's side so back at least to the early bronze age) and I feel I have both a right and a Duty to favour MY OWN PEOPLE WHOSE LAND THIS IS, the dirt of this land is paid for in the blood of my ancestor's and it is the sweat, tears and labour of there lives as well as there very ashes, this is MY HOUSE and I will not let the Robber tie me up while he ransacks it and murders my children.

SO if this new law is used to suppress we the people the government is in for one hell of a nasty shock as we are SICK AND TIRED OF IT and they will find it creates a backlash of hatred and anger, BUT IF IT IS used to stop internet HATE and Trolling then splendid and correct, about time.

I have seen street's in my country renamed after foreigner dignitary's erasing there true history even though they proudly bore the same name for hundreds of years as though they are now colonies of these other nation's, Elderly British people who lived through the nazi blitz terrorized by Asian Gang's outside there homes whom have taken over there neighborhood's and my country that was always a CHRISTIAN nation (they would not be here if it had not been) now dropping that title with even the Crown changing there title from DEFENDER OF THE FAITH to DEFENDER OF THE FAITHS.

Racism for Racists sake is wrong but how much more wrong is it if a foreign enclave establishes itself capitalizing on our law's and using them to prevent the truth calling it racism while they do the very same thing to us, taking the very inheritance of our children as though we where the wild west and the indians here to be removed so that they can have wonderful lives in our home.

Sometime's anti racists have a racist agenda all of there own and I found that out.

This law will be unenforcable with only test cases and less than one percent prosecution of only high status Troll's who attack members of the government or cause a news worthy suicide's, instead the government should have gone after the ISP's and Chatroom's to ensure they are policing themselves properly.

It will however be good to stop some form's of cyber crime and cyber trolling is often related to cyber stalking with can turn into real world stalking and worse, also cyber bullying has to stop.

Racist trolling againt footballers etc it highly evil and totally wrong, as is racist posts, tweets etc based soley on ethnicity.

Like I say though I feel this is merely a political stunt and I am sad to say that it will be used to stop free speech by targeting online activists etc, you know in Britain we used to have a place, one place only in london called Speakers Corner and there you could say anything you wished as it was a place of free speech but not anymore so free speech in the UK is essentially dead, at least for the ethnic british.
edit on 19-10-2014 by LABTECH767 because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 19 2014 @ 07:58 AM
link   
Chloe Rape Threats

For this to be happening in the UK at the same exact timeGamergatewas going on in the US is absolutely not in anyway a coincidence. The many times I've been manipulated, I think I am starting to catch on.


California Criminal Threats

Ya, and you can get 4 years in California, 5 with the finding of a weapon.

In My situation, just to get personal, i don't care, a plainclothes cop was chasing me with a gun, i was in total fear for my life not knowing he was even a cop, just that he was pointing a gun at me, when I went to a local business to ask to them to call 911, the owner got angry and started swinging at me. I pulled a knife and threatened him, not to come closer. In short time I was facing 12 years.


For every crime you invent, more innocent people are going to go into the system. You see to me, I would rather not one person be in prison, than to have one single innocent person there. And how many innocent people go to prison, its a lot but the one's we find out about are far and few between.

One time I was locked up for 6 months because a girl touched my foot. She was embarrassed by the "foot contact" I made an insensitive comment, She reported that I assaulted her. I had to tell the judge, " I'm addicted to weed help me" just so I wouldn't go to state prison for 6 years. LOL mortified now

edit on 19-10-2014 by nrd101 because: Gamergate link



posted on Oct, 19 2014 @ 08:41 AM
link   

originally posted by: LABTECH767
a reply to: Pandaram
..another control mechanism and will not stop the problem at all, indeed when someone has there hand's tied they are likely to fight harder to be free, likewise if you gag them and they have something to say.

This law will be unenforceable with only test cases and less than one percent prosecution of only high status Troll's who attack members of the government or cause a news worthy suicide's, instead the government should have gone after the ISP's and Chat room's to ensure they are policing themselves properly.

It will however be good to stop some form's of cyber crime and cyber trolling is often related to cyber stalking with can turn into real world stalking and worse, also cyber bullying has to stop.

Like I say though I feel this is merely a political stunt and I am sad to say that it will be used to stop free speech by targeting online activists etc, you know in Britain we used to have a place, one place only in london called Speakers Corner and there you could say anything you wished as it was a place of free speech but not anymore so free speech in the UK is essentially dead, at least for the ethnic british.


Edit: These are really epic quotes, and I can tell you are from the UK, you seem prepared, like this has come up before :/ I like a lot of what you have to say, you make a ton of logical sense in these posts. I am not against punishing bullies, I just don't think its logical to punish them by being BULLIES ourselves. I swear to god, making them write love on the chalkboard a 1000 times is way better. Give them direction, hope, yoga, meditation training, anger management, a job, a new car, whatever it takes to take them off the path of being a dangerous individual, sending them to prison is cementing it.

edit on 19-10-2014 by nrd101 because: edited

edit on 19-10-2014 by nrd101 because: typo ?



posted on Oct, 19 2014 @ 08:52 AM
link   

originally posted by: Pandaram
internet trolling become major crime in uk from today. if proven, trolls will be sentence to 2 years in prison.
law makers call the issue as, (trolls are) poison seeds in the society.

Google uk news for more information.


It already is a crime, what has been proposed is an extension of the maximum sentence.



posted on Oct, 19 2014 @ 08:56 AM
link   

originally posted by: gortex
a reply to: Kangaruex4Ewe




Death threats are one thing, but what one defines as grossly offensive can vary widely from person to person.

Exactly , there are many things this government has said and done I find deeply offensive but they define it as fairness.
It seems to me when faced with a problem the only response this Tory goverment has is the threat of prison , I believe if they win the next election any criticism of the govenment will likely carry a 6 month minimum term.


Shock, horror, I don't think it was this government that made it a crime, it actually is part of the Communications act which has existed for years to map to similar laws for other types of media. I'm a bit surprised at you Gortex, you usually know your facts.

BTW, if any American wants to harp in around how they protect free speech, this is relatively similar to the 'Hate Speech' exception to the American first amendment, so it's no different in America.



posted on Oct, 19 2014 @ 09:17 AM
link   
As for hate crime, I see that as antiquated as affirmative action, as it disproportionately affects one race over another. This is the same thing as the 80- 85% black arrest rate in urban area's for drugs and other infractions. Not only that, but it is used as an enhancement, meaning not only did you commit a crime, but you are being punished twice for same crime.

When black youths on the streets of Chicago and other urban area's were polar bear hunting, there was never any mention of hate crime, this is a kind of double standard.


Anti-black bias is the most frequently reported hate crime motivation in the United States. Of the 8,208 hate crimes reported to the FBI in 2010, 48% were race related - with 70% of those having an anti-black bias


I am just saying when you write laws that have been shown to disproportionately affect one group over another that is inherently unconstitutional.


I apologize if I offended anyone's sensibilities. I am not trying to be insensitive, for that I am sorry.
edit on 19-10-2014 by nrd101 because: apology

edit on 19-10-2014 by nrd101 because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 19 2014 @ 09:18 AM
link   
a reply to: Pandaram

Hopefully that includes their paid government trolls.



posted on Oct, 19 2014 @ 09:47 AM
link   
This is mostly to stop people speaking up about the paedophile ring involving many prominent members of the British establishment.

Two years in jail for speaking out about it, or 40,000 pounds reward for keeping quiet. Easy choice.

This is tied in to making sure that anyone who is angered by the "rape is ok" message on TV had better keep quiet or they'll be locked up.

Also the sentence is absurd, what message does it give if threatening to hit someone has a higher sentence than actually hitting them?



posted on Oct, 19 2014 @ 10:00 AM
link   

originally posted by: supermouse
This is mostly to stop people speaking up about the paedophile ring involving many prominent members of the British establishment.

Two years in jail for speaking out about it, or 40,000 pounds reward for keeping quiet. Easy choice.

This is tied in to making sure that anyone who is angered by the "rape is ok" message on TV had better keep quiet or they'll be locked up.

Also the sentence is absurd, what message does it give if threatening to hit someone has a higher sentence than actually hitting them?


It seems a lot has changed since just 2012. Just by comparing these two articles, the first one makes it seem like in 2012 they didn't have the means or ability to go after these defamatory internet trolls.

See this link for quote from BBC
BBC - Internet Trolls 2012


Website operators in the UK may soon have to identify people who have posted defamatory messages online, allowing the victim to undertake legal action against the "troll" rather than against the website.



posted on Oct, 19 2014 @ 10:38 AM
link   
So we could theoretically wind up with the absurd spectacle of somebody spending more time in jail for threatening rape, than somebody else who actually committed a rape?!


I think I have to agree with the above, this is about controlling the Westminster Pedo Scandal.



new topics




 
16
<< 1  2    4 >>

log in

join