Police to get tough on internet trolls.

[jfman]

Bad legislation is always legislation intended to plug a gap that isn't there. How do the offences you perceive in your own head Richard vary from offences under s.127 of the Communications Act 2003?

Originally Posted by RichardCoulter

Why on Earth would anyone do that? You have a very negative view of the world.

To my knowledge there won't be any penalties in the unlikely scenarios that you describe, not that I envisage that any will be needed.

It must be nice in that pink fluffy world you live in.

However, out here in the real world, reality is very different.

[RichardCoulter]

Originally Posted by jfman

Bad legislation is always legislation intended to plug a gap that isn't there. How do the offences you perceive in your own head Richard vary from offences under s.127 of the Communications Act 2003?

To my knowledge, existing legislation that has been used in the past will remain in place.

What the new Act aims to do is be much broader in what it covers, make it far easier for people to lodge a complaint and to try and quickly get things like scamming, child sex abuse etc off the internet.

There will be no cost to the complainant who makes a request or complaint and things that aren't illegal, that nevertheless cause distress/inconvenience, will be able to be dealt with.

[Qtx]

You can't please all the people all the time. People will find anything to get upset about or will get upset for others. Where as in the past we would not pander to over sensitive people, we are now at a point where law is being used to force everyone to consider every sensitive snowflakes feeling.

It has a chilling effect. The internet thrived because it was open and without limits and people could freely express what they wanted. This freedom accelerated minority groups hidden away scared who now stand proudly. The very thing that allowed social progress is now going in reverse with extreme moderation of topics/alternative views limiting what people say and new laws will limit that further.

Imagine if the internet was around earlier when being gay was illegal. Talk about that kind of stuff would be moderated on all social platform to the point it would be hidden. So who decides at any particular time what can and cant be said?

Apart from reactive policing to emergencies, the police spend most of their time dealing with social media stuff where people say stuff they don't really mean but they love it because of the digital trail and it gives them good looking results. So sod anyone who has a car and bike stolen as they put minimal effort in to that and just tell you to deal with an insurance company. All because people are too sensitive to what others say online.

There are far worst things people can do online to upset you than call someone a name so people need to stop going crying over every little thing and forcing new laws.

It will cause a chilling effect because the majority of sites will over-moderate because they are scared of fines and court action. Look at how DMCA takedowns have destroyed artists and creators because platforms will take down work instantly no matter who sends a notice and its so hard to get it reversed. They do this because the DMCA law scares them. The same will happen on chat forums.

[GrimUpNorth]

Originally Posted by RichardCoulter

Why on Earth would anyone do that? You have a very negative view of the world.

To my knowledge there won't be any penalties in the unlikely scenarios that you describe, not that I envisage that any will be needed.

Why on earth wouldn't they? I have a realistic view if the world, sadly many people are dishonest and some of them think if there's something in it for them then they'll chance their hand and give it a go. There are people (I'm sure most of us could name at least one) who try and make a career out of complaining with a view to making some sort of financial gain when most people wouldn't bother because they feel the complaint is frivolous or a distortion of the truth or at worst an outright lie. I wonder how many complaints these people make that gets them nowhere, I suppose we'll never know.

Any law needs to also allow websites to stand up to non-genuine complainants and at the very least allow some mechanism for them to easily recover their costs.

Originally Posted by GrimUpNorth

Why on earth wouldn't they? I have a realistic view if the world, sadly many people are dishonest and some of them think if there's something in it for them then they'll chance their hand and give it a go. There are people (I'm sure most of us could name at least one) who try and make a career out of complaining with a view to making some sort of financial gain when most people wouldn't bother because they feel the complaint is frivolous or a distortion of the truth or at worst an outright lie. I wonder how many complaints these people make that gets them nowhere, I suppose we'll never know.

Any law needs to also allow websites to stand up to non-genuine complainants and at the very least allow some mechanism for them to easily recover their costs.

---------- Post added at 08:46 ---------- Previous post was at 08:45 ----------

Originally Posted by Qtx

You can't please all the people all the time. People will find anything to get upset about or will get upset for others. Where as in the past we would not pander to over sensitive people, we are now at a point where law is being used to force everyone to consider every sensitive snowflakes feeling.

It has a chilling effect. The internet thrived because it was open and without limits and people could freely express what they wanted. This freedom accelerated minority groups hidden away scared who now stand proudly. The very thing that allowed social progress is now going in reverse with extreme moderation of topics/alternative views limiting what people say and new laws will limit that further.

Imagine if the internet was around earlier when being gay was illegal. Talk about that kind of stuff would be moderated on all social platform to the point it would be hidden. So who decides at any particular time what can and cant be said?

Apart from reactive policing to emergencies, the police spend most of their time dealing with social media stuff where people say stuff they don't really mean but they love it because of the digital trail and it gives them good looking results. So sod anyone who has a car and bike stolen as they put minimal effort in to that and just tell you to deal with an insurance company. All because people are too sensitive to what others say online.

There are far worst things people can do online to upset you than call someone a name so people need to stop going crying over every little thing and forcing new laws.

It will cause a chilling effect because the majority of sites will over-moderate because they are scared of fines and court action. Look at how DMCA takedowns have destroyed artists and creators because platforms will take down work instantly no matter who sends a notice and its so hard to get it reversed. They do this because the DMCA law scares them. The same will happen on chat forums.

[RichardCoulter]

You should have expressed your concerns when you had the chance, it's too late now that it's going through Parliament.

Maggy- If your daughter came to you upset because she'd been subject to inappropriate comments, simply for being a woman or a lesbian, would you expect her to just ignore it and tell her that others have the right to say what they want?

Originally Posted by RichardCoulter

You should have expressed your concerns when you had the chance, it's too late now that it's going through Parliament.

Maggy- If your daughter came to you upset because she'd been subject to inappropriate comments, simply for being a woman or a lesbian, would you expect her to just ignore it and tell her that others have the right to say what they want?

She's a grown woman and can deal with her affairs without my permission or assistance.She's more than capable in taking care of herself.I and my husband taught her well and are confident that she knows how to deal with such issues.She's been doing so for sometime.She has a tongue in her head and has frequently had to deal with the issue of being in a same sex marriage.Nice try in using my family to try and shore up your pathetic attempt to justify your position.

[RichardCoulter]

Originally Posted by Maggy

She's a grown woman and can deal with her affairs without my permission or assistance.She's more than capable in taking care of herself.I and my husband taught her well and are confident that she knows how to deal with such issues.She's been doing so for sometime.She has a tongue in her head and has frequently had to deal with the issue of being in a same sex marriage.Nice try in using my family to try and shore up your pathetic attempt to justify your position.

Nevertheless, do you think that those who have unjustifiably given her hassle had the right to do it because they have a right to freedom of speech (assuming that they genuinely held these views and were not simply doing it out of malice)?

The latest survey says that 20% of people still think that same sex relationships are wrong. Should they mind their own business and keep their views to themselves, or should they be allowed to express them, often using insulting words like 'unnatural', 'perverted', 'sick' etc.

[OLD BOY]

Originally Posted by RichardCoulter

Nevertheless, do you think that those who have unjustifiably given her hassle had the right to do it because they have a right to freedom of speech (assuming that they genuinely held these views and were not simply doing it out of malice)?

The latest survey says that 20% of people still think that same sex relationships are wrong. Should they mind their own business and keep their views to themselves, or should they be allowed to express them, often using insulting words like 'unnatural', 'perverted', 'sick' etc.

Well, under the Online Safety Bill, that post of yours would be banned, because you've just used the words 'unnatural', 'perverted' and 'sick' to describe same sex relationships.

Does this help you to understand the worrying nature of this Bill? You wouldn't be able to escape the censors by writing 'Some may say' or suchlike to get away with insults.

People will be scared to say anything in case some snowflake deliberately misinterprets it and free speech will be dead. This proposed legislation is OTT and is definitely a step too far and it should be killed at birth. Oh, dear - hope that didn't upset anyone....

[GrimUpNorth]

Originally Posted by OLD BOY

Well, under the Online Safety Bill, that post of yours would be banned, because you've just used the words 'unnatural', 'perverted' and 'sick' to describe same sex relationships.

Does this help you to understand the worrying nature of this Bill? You wouldn't be able to escape the censors by writing 'Some may say' or suchlike to get away with insults.

People will be scared to say anything in case some snowflake deliberately misinterprets it and free speech will be dead. This proposed legislation is OTT and is definitely a step too far and it should be killed at birth. Oh, dear - hope that didn't upset anyone....

Doesn't happen often but I agree with Old Boy .

[Qtx]

Originally Posted by RichardCoulter

The latest survey says that 20% of people still think that same sex relationships are wrong. Should they mind their own business and keep their views to themselves, or should they be allowed to express them, often using insulting words like 'unnatural', 'perverted', 'sick' etc.

People are entitled to have their own views and share it in various spaces. If its used directly to actually harass someone or a group, we already have laws against that.

The benefit of not censoring such comments allows them to be challenged and debated. The alternative is these people create hidden communities where they end up spending more time talking and thinking about these things and become more extreme in that bubble.

Originally Posted by RichardCoulter

.. would you expect her to just ignore it and tell her that others have the right to say what they want?

Yes.

Ever heard of "I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it" ?

You seem to think it should be "Say what we think you should say/believe [only], or else ....".

[RichardCoulter]

Originally Posted by Qtx

People are entitled to have their own views and share it in various spaces. If its used directly to actually harass someone or a group, we already have laws against that.

The benefit of not censoring such comments allows them to be challenged and debated. The alternative is these people create hidden communities where they end up spending more time talking and thinking about these things and become more extreme in that bubble.

Being able to debate matters and, hopefully, bring people round to an alternative point of view is something that I fully support. Fortunately, I don't believe that the Act will impact this.

Your excellent point was actually made during the consultation period, so should have been taken into account by the politicians.

If it makes people think twice before posting something (or how they phrase it), or it leads to site managers taking their responsibilities more seriously, that can only be a good thing that will drive up the the quality of posts, adverts, interaction overall and lead to, often vulnerable, people being able to enjoy the internet without being subject to various forms of abuse.

Originally Posted by RichardCoulter

The latest survey says that 20% of people still think that same sex relationships are wrong. Should they mind their own business and keep their views to themselves

Absolutely not, they have the same right to those views as all the others, who have different views.