Police to get tough on internet trolls.

[RichardCoulter]

Originally Posted by Mythica

It's still a direct question to you. You seem very vocal on the matter of harassment and the like.

I find harrassment abhorrent and will not tolerate it to myself or others- I am indeed very vocal about it.

It's never wise to ask people who are not legally trained for legal advice/opinions, it's always sensible to consult and pay for a professional if you need advice of a legal nature.

[Mythica]

Originally Posted by RichardCoulter

I find harrassment abhorrent and will not tolerate it to myself or others- I am indeed very vocal about it.

It's never wise to ask people who are not legally trained for legal advice/opinions, it's always sensible to consult and pay for a professional if you need advice of a legal nature.

You don't get it do you. You've annoyed plenty of people in here and threatened legal action for something that didn't happen, yet you're so vocal on your rights and rights of protected groups. What I want to know from you is where non protected groups stand from such accusations and annoyance from people like you? We're all one aren't we?

I'm not asking for legal advice, I want your opinion.

[Qtx]

Originally Posted by RichardCoulter

Anyone coming out and telling somebody that they didn't like them because they were black, disabled, gay etc would be committing an offence.

Some just like to harass/upset/annoy people in protected groups and think that if they stay clear of mentioning certain subjects or using certain terminology that they will get away with it.

Treading carefully...lets throw some autism in to the mix. Some people with autism, through no fault of their own, can rub people up the wrong way. Or they say things that offend without meaning too. Some neurotypicals are able to take onboard the reasons for this, others are unable to or simply don't understand the reasons. Such a person may dislike the autistic person because of how the autism makes them act. Should it be a crime to give that honest opinion that they don't like someone because of the autism instead of just thinking it?

On the other side of the fence, someone with autism might get offended by a joke that was not intended to be malicious and just light hearted banter.

It is very hard on the internet to tell if anyone has any disability, mental health issues or something going on in their life that would cause them to be sensitive to things otherwise seen as benign. Add on top there are always clashes of personalities between people without any notable issues and people often take things the wrong way.

Trying to police that with new laws or legal action is not a good thing.

[RichardCoulter]

Originally Posted by Qtx

Treading carefully...lets throw some autism in to the mix. Some people with autism, through no fault of their own, can rub people up the wrong way. Or they say things that offend without meaning too. Some neurotypicals are able to take onboard the reasons for this, others are unable to or simply don't understand the reasons. Such a person may dislike the autistic person because of how the autism makes them act. Should it be a crime to give that honest opinion that they don't like someone because of the autism instead of just thinking it?

On the other side of the fence, someone with autism might get offended by a joke that was not intended to be malicious and just light hearted banter.

It is very hard on the internet to tell if anyone has any disability, mental health issues or something going on in their life that would cause them to be sensitive to things otherwise seen as benign. Add on top there are always clashes of personalities between people without any notable issues and people often take things the wrong way.

Trying to police that with new laws or legal action is not a good thing.

You make some very good points. I think the way to deal with this is for people to voluntarily make any issues known, as I have done, so that any difficulties can be acknowledged and taken into account. People cannot make allowances if they are not informed of a person's difficulties/limitations and, once they are, they are legally obliged to take them into account.

I remember one member who had dyslexia became fed up of people picking him up about spelling mistakes, so he explained his difficulties on his tagline.

Some forums disallow posts about spelling mistakes for this very reason.

I once saw a programme about a guy with tourettes syndrome, which resulted in him having verbal ticks. He went into a shop where a black woman worked and started swearing and using racist language.

She knew him and his condition from previous experiences and took it in her stride without becoming offended as she knew he couldn't help it and didn't mean it.

I was very impressed with her professional and understanding attitude and hoped that her employer took note of this.

[Qtx]

Originally Posted by RichardCoulter

I once saw a programme about a guy with tourettes syndrome, which resulted in him having verbal ticks. He went into a shop where a black woman worked and started swearing and using racist language.

She knew him and his condition from previous experiences and took it in her stride without becoming offended as she knew he couldn't help it and didn't mean it.

I was very impressed with her professional and understanding attitude and hoped that her employer took note of this.

That poor guy, if in a discord chat for example, could fall foul of this new internet troll law if someone unaware reported him as racist. Its hard enough for moderators to decide whether to ban someone based on his condition which could be seen as discrimination too. Moderators have it hard enough with those kind of decisions already. They don't need more complications on top imo.

[RichardCoulter]

Originally Posted by Qtx

That poor guy, if in a discord chat for example, could fall foul of this new internet troll law if someone unaware reported him as racist. Its hard enough for moderators to decide whether to ban someone based on his condition which could be seen as discrimination too. Moderators have it hard enough with those kind of decisions already. They don't need more complications on top imo.

This is why I think it essential for people to declare any difficulties that they have to prevent any misunderstanding further down the line, though I think it should ultimately be for the disabled person to decide whether to self declare or not.

I think that there will need to be a lot of training/retraining if moderators are to stay on the right side of the law and act appropriately, particularly as they could be personally fined as a result (and some don't even get paid to do it).

[Mythica]

Totally ignoring the question now, brilliant.

[peanut]

Originally Posted by RichardCoulter

This is why I think it essential for people to declare any difficulties that they have to prevent any misunderstanding further down the line, though I think it should ultimately be for the disabled person to decide whether to self declare or not.

I think that there will need to be a lot of training/retraining if moderators are to stay on the right side of the law and act appropriately, particularly as they could be personally fined as a result (and some don't even get paid to do it).

So let me get this straight. All the years I've been here there's only been one person as far as I know that this site 'could' possibly be a problem if these new laws come into effect and that is you.

I'm sure you're hoping the new laws will come into effect as you'll be on the phone every 5 minutes with a new complaint.

[OLD BOY]

If Liz Truss becomes PM, judging what she has been saying, she may well take out these particular provisions of the Online Safety Bill.

We all know there is a problem with trolls and the bad attitudes of some people, but this is not the way to deal with it. Freedom of speech is precious and we should not allow anyone to interfere with that.

[TheDaddy]

Originally Posted by OLD BOY

If Liz Truss becomes PM, judging what she has been saying, she may well take out these particular provisions of the Online Safety Bill.

We all know there is a problem with trolls and the bad attitudes of some people, but this is not the way to deal with it. Freedom of speech is precious and we should not allow anyone to interfere with that.

Doubt it, nadine is one of her biggest cheer leaders

[GrimUpNorth]

Originally Posted by OLD BOY

If Liz Truss becomes PM, judging what she has been saying, she may well take out these particular provisions of the Online Safety Bill.

We all know there is a problem with trolls and the bad attitudes of some people, but this is not the way to deal with it. Freedom of speech is precious and we should not allow anyone to interfere with that.

We'd all get bored pretty quickly if you had to moderate all that crap you spout!! Being serious though, I find myself agreeing with you again and I'm quite worried .

[OLD BOY]

Originally Posted by TheDaddy

Doubt it, nadine is one of her biggest cheer leaders

Well, Liz Truss wants the police to get on with catching criminals instead of being arbitrators of internet posters who’ve had the feelings hurt. She said so.

I don’t seriously think that Nadine would argue with Liz over that, do you?

I’m not advocating the Bill be scrapped, just that these provisions about these delicate flowers being offended are taken out.

---------- Post added at 19:28 ---------- Previous post was at 19:26 ----------

Originally Posted by GrimUpNorth

We'd all get bored pretty quickly if you had to moderate all that crap you spout!! Being serious though, I find myself agreeing with you again and I'm quite worried .

There are bound to be differences between those on the left of politics and those on the right, but the reasonable ones always manage to agree a lot on matters in between!

[RichardCoulter]

Originally Posted by OLD BOY

Well, Liz Truss wants the police to get on with catching criminals instead of being arbitrators of internet posters who’ve had the feelings hurt. She said so.

I don’t seriously think that Nadine would argue with Liz over that, do you?

I’m not advocating the Bill be scrapped, just that these provisions about these delicate flowers being offended are taken out.

---------- Post added at 19:28 ---------- Previous post was at 19:26 ----------



There are bound to be differences between those on the left of politics and those on the right, but the reasonable ones always manage to agree a lot on matters in between!

The police are unlikely to become involved except in the most serious of cases, such as the prolonged campaign of discriminatory harrassment in breach of an anti harrassment notice under the Harrassment Act & libellous comments made by someone to me on facebook or the racist comments made to the three black footballers, child sex abuse, serious scammers etc.

This is precisely why Ofcom have had their remit widened to include those making a nuisance of themselves on the internet.

[GrimUpNorth]

Originally Posted by RichardCoulter

The police are unlikely to become involved except in the most serious of cases, such as the prolonged campaign of discriminatory harrassment in breach of an anti harrassment notice under the Harrassment Act & libellous comments made by someone to me on facebook or the racist comments made to the three black footballers, child sex abuse, serious scammers etc.

This is precisely why Ofcom have had their remit widened to include those making a nuisance of themselves on the internet.

Defamation of character is a civil matter so the police don't have any jurisdiction to get involved. If you feel someone has made libelous comments about you and your legal team have lead you to believe the police will get involved then maybe you should be worried about any other advice they've given you too.

[RichardCoulter]

Originally Posted by GrimUpNorth

Defamation of character is a civil matter so the police don't have any jurisdiction to get involved. If you feel someone has made libelous comments about you and your legal team have lead you to believe the police will get involved then maybe you should be worried about any other advice they've given you too.

It's the harassment that the police are dealing with after my legal representative referred it to them (the comments designed to damage my reputation are an integral part of the harassment complaint).

The libel in itself, as you say, is a civil matter and being dealt with by my solicitor.