Police to get tough on internet trolls.

[RichardCoulter]

Originally Posted by Hugh

Text version of the above…

The UK terror survivors tracked down by ‘disaster trolls’

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-63412651

Thanks, I didn't know that at least one of the trolls were making money out of doing this

As one victim says:

I'm all for freedom of speech," Martin Hibbert told me. "But it crosses the line when you're saying I'm an actor or I've not got a spinal cord injury or Eve's not disabled, she's not in a wheelchair.

[jfman]

Originally Posted by RichardCoulter

One particularly distasteful type of troll is the 'Disaster Troll'. These people home in on people who have been or are going through a terrible time in their lives.

Victims range from people fundraising for cancer charities who have cancer themselves being called liars & fraudsters (she has since died of her condition) to people injured in the Manchester terrorist attack being called liars and being told that they are professional actors. One troll even traced someones home address to spy on them to check if they were disabled after the attack as they had claimed. I believe the woman who was spied on is to now take legal action.

Panorama gave an insight into what's going on earlier:

https://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/m001ds10

Radio 4 currently has a series devoted to the subject at 9:45 (repeated at 00:30).

All episodes broadcast thus far are available here:

https://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/m00...0and%20threats.

Are these not covered by existing stalking/harassment laws?

[RichardCoulter]

Originally Posted by jfman

Are these not covered by existing stalking/harassment laws?

Yes and existing laws are what she will have to rely on because, due to the shenanigans Iin Parliament, the Onlne Safety Bill isn't now expected to become law until May (was originally next month).

Existing laws will remain in place and be available to use should these be more appropriate, but the Online Safety Bill aims to make things much easier, quicker and saves complainants having to pay for legal assistance.

[RichardCoulter]

This afternoons 'Feedback' covered Disaster Trolls in their first item:

https://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/m001f5hl

The woman who it was claimed had taken part in the "fake' Manchester bombing and lied about her resultant disabilities is to take action for libel and I wish her every success.

Earlier, on Woman's Hour, the Internet Watch Foundation explained how children are being targeted by paedophiles and why the Online Safety Bill is needed. Again, it's the first item:

https://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/m001f5fg

[RichardCoulter]

Now being reported on BBC News that deep fake porn is to be made unlawful under the Online Safety Bill.

The Bill is expected to be put before Parliament in about ten days time and pass into law sometime in May.

[RichardCoulter]

Tory MP warns that the takeover of Twitter by Elon Musk and his support for absolute freedom of speech could lead to stricter regulation of the internet:

https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-politics-63426734

---------- Post added at 22:54 ---------- Previous post was at 22:49 ----------

Originally Posted by RichardCoulter

Her father looked broken when interviewed after losing his young daughter to suicide. I imagine he doesn't want any other parent to go through the same thing.

Update:

The Online Safety Bill is to be amended. As it stands, encouraging or causing people to self harm or commit suicide is classed as legal, but harmful.

The Bill will now make this a criminal offence punishable by imprisonment.

[Julian]

Some common sense at last.

HERE

[RichardCoulter]

Originally Posted by Julian

Some common sense at last.

HERE

This relates to the 'Harmful, but legal' content.

There were fears that content deemed to be harmful, but legal, may impact on free speech. Whilst these fears have been allayed, I think that a side effect will be more legislation to deal with specific circumstances as opposed to a more generalised approach, such as the earlier announcement of the criminalisation of acts designed to encourage people to harm themselves or commit suicide.

[Sirius]

Originally Posted by Julian

Some common sense at last.

HERE

Indeed its good to see some common sense at last

[RichardCoulter]

Now being reported on the BBC1 lunchtime news.

Those representing vulnerable adults have critiscised this, whilst those who believed that this could inhibit free speech have welcomed it.

---------- Post added at 13:57 ---------- Previous post was at 13:54 ----------

Originally Posted by Sirius

Indeed its good to see some common sense at last

Do you think that saying something harmful to a vulnerable individual is acceptable/appropriate, even if it is technically legal?

[Pierre]

Originally Posted by RichardCoulter

Do you think that saying something harmful to a vulnerable individual is acceptable/appropriate, even if it is technically legal?

Now such thing as technically legal, it's either lawful or unlawful.

If it's lawful, whether it's appropriate or not is not relevant.

[RichardCoulter]

Now confirmed by BBC news:

Instead of the 'Harmful, but legal' provisions (the most controversial part of the Bill), the Government says that to create a fair balance between protecting vulnerable individuals and free speech, they will be less prescriptive about legal, but harmful content and make the most harmful of comments completely illegal.

There are pros & cons to both approaches as making a general law saves having to pass numerous pieces of legislation, but this could give rise to people innocently falling foul of the law.

Having to pass numerous pieces of legislation clogs up Parliament with potentially unnecessary time consuming work- but everyone gets to know where they stand before posting something.

---------- Post added at 14:32 ---------- Previous post was at 14:24 ----------

Originally Posted by Pierre

Now such thing as technically legal, it's either lawful or unlawful.

If it's lawful, whether it's appropriate or not is not relevant.

There are individuals causing people to become so upset and depressed that they want to end their own life. Some of these people are already suffering after being caught up in acts of terrorism.

Do you think that this is ok because it's not illegal at the moment?

The Government seems to be trying to make things clearer now by going down the route of making each situation illegal as it arises rather than a 'catch all' piece of legislation. As I said earlier, there are pros & cons to both approaches to deal with this problem.

[Pierre]

Originally Posted by RichardCoulter

There are individuals causing people to become so upset and depressed that they want to end their own life. Some of these people are already suffering after being caught up in acts of terrorism.

Do you think that this is ok because it's not illegal at the moment?

I'd have to know the particulars of each incident to have a view on it.

Originally Posted by RichardCoulter

There are individuals causing people to become so upset and depressed that they want to end their own life.

Thats hardly new, thats always happened, long before the internet ever existed.
We dont need draconian, vague, catch all laws for everything, far too much nanny state again.
The internet is not forced on anyone, and all this 'material' just doesnt magically jump out at people, you have to go looking for it.

[RichardCoulter]

Originally Posted by Paul

Thats hardly new, thats always happened, long before the internet ever existed.
We dont need draconian, vague, catch all laws for everything, far too much nanny state again.
The internet is not forced on anyone, and all this 'material' just doesnt magically jump out at people, you have to go looking for it.

A lot of people believed that the catch all provision would also hinder free speech or lead to a situation where something said verbally became illegal if presented in word form.

The Government has decided to amend this and instead create specific laws to deal with the most serious of offences- it's good that people across the board are having their points of view listened to and, like a lot of legislation, a compromise has been made.

Not everyone is happy though, the father of Molly Russell (the girl who lost her life) has today accused the Government of "watering down the Bill".