Police to get tough on internet trolls.

[TheDaddy]

Originally Posted by Paul

There is nothing wrong with saying/rasing what 'the country' did 150 (or whatever) years ago, apologising for it, as though its our fault, is something else.

I find plenty wrong with it, you're apologising on behalf of long dead people who saw nothing wrong with what they were doing, times were different then, we can say, using our modern values it was wrong and it'd be better it didn't happen but it won't change anything and I don't like the way any requests for apologies are soon followed by demands for reparations

Originally Posted by Hugh

"Free speech" also includes being allowed to challenge what others say, which is what some "free speech" advocates object to - their definition of "free speech" appears to be "I can say what I want, but you can’t say what you want if it’s not in total support of my view"…

Yeah was like that at school, don't say anything unless you're sure everyone else present is in total agreement with you

[pip08456]

Originally Posted by TheDaddy

I find plenty wrong with it, you're apologising on behalf of long dead people who saw nothing wrong with what they were doing, times were different then, we can say, using our modern values it was wrong and it'd be better it didn't happen but it won't change anything and I don't like the way any requests for apologies are soon followed by demands for reparations



Yeah was like that at school, don't say anything unless you're sure everyone else present is in total agreement with you

I think you need to read Paul's post again.

[Carth]

Originally Posted by Jaymoss

There are already laws against "Free Speech"
Bare in mind you can get done for hate crimes just by using speech. Long gone are the days of sticks and stones and rightly so in some cases, words can do a lot of damage

Yes, there are already laws in place, and many do a decent job.
The trouble is that either these laws are constantly amended, words and phrases added, definitions updated, or new laws are being implemented to cover newer terms, conditions and practices in the rapidly changing digital world we live in.

Laws are fine, no problem, they create a line we shouldn't cross. That line however, is turning into a mile wide 'grey' area full of hidden pitfalls, a minefield where the smartest and most expensive (or free if you qualify) lawyers ply their trade.

Originally Posted by pip08456

I think you need to read Paul's post again.

I think so as well.

[TheDaddy]

Originally Posted by pip08456

I think you need to read Paul's post again.

Yes my eyesight is not great anymore, looked to me like the post carried on from not seeing anything wrong to apologising

[RichardCoulter]

Originally Posted by Maggy

I also don't like the fact that 'free speech' has become the right to say anything offensive to anybody particularly from behind a keyboard.

It's usually inadequates that do this as they wouldn't dare say it to a person's face. There's even a name for them 'Keyboard Warriors'!

[Mythica]

Originally Posted by RichardCoulter

It's usually inadequates that do this as they wouldn't dare say it to a person's face. There's even a name for them 'Keyboard Warriors'!

You mean like the ones that threaten legal action at the drop of a hat?

[Russ]

Originally Posted by Mythica

You mean like the ones that threaten legal action at the drop of a hat?

Yep the irony is off the scale.

Still, some of us have worked in Law for a long time and would relish the challenge.

[RichardCoulter]

Originally Posted by Carth

It's the only way to stop online abuse.

It's now getting to the stage where anything you write/post on the internet, no matter how innocent or innocuous it is, can be seen as offensive by someone, somewhere - whether to them or on behalf of others - and the knock on the door follows.

And I don't think I'm wrong in suggesting there are people out there that go looking for it, either for financial gain or the smug satisfaction of seeing others trip over.

Just look at how many times on this forum, that a MOD has had to step in and tell people to cool down . . then take it a stage further where instead of warning people, you have to (by law) report them to the authorities as 'posts that could be construed as offensive'

That could eventually lead to bye bye forum, closed down and possibly fines handed out. Do we want it to reach that stage?

The vast, vast majority of people won't notice any difference whatsoever or have to amend how they publish things online. They will simply continue to treat people with kindness, consideration, respect and make allowances for any disabilities that affects how a person expresses themselves or interacts.

Your suggestion that those wronged who turn to legal redress are doing it for personal gain or the satisfaction of smugly seeing others 'trip over' is as wrong as it is incorrect. These type of remarks are likely to cause offence, so anyone who fears 'tripping over' would be wise to start watching where they are going.

Many websites, forums, chat rooms etc are already revising their forum rules and retraining admin/moderation staff for the forthcoming online harms bill anyway, so this initiative could just be incorporated into this to prevent any fines/closures etc.

Originally Posted by RichardCoulter

Your suggestion that those wronged who turn to legal redress are doing it for personal gain or the satisfaction of smugly seeing others 'trip over' is as wrong as it is incorrect.

Firstly, wrong and incorrect are the same thing.
Secondly, you are obviously wrong, as people clearly do it for both, esp personal gain.

Originally Posted by RichardCoulter

These type of remarks are likely to cause offence, so anyone who fears 'tripping over' would be wise to start watching where they are going.

Wonderful, you just completely proved my point about the mis-use of "offence" (or "offended").

Originally Posted by RichardCoulter

Many websites, forums, chat rooms etc are already revising their forum rules and retraining admin/moderation staff for the forthcoming online harms bill anyway, so this initiative could just be incorporated into this to prevent any fines/closures etc.

Many are not, nor do they need to.

[Russ]

Originally Posted by Paul

Secondly, you are obviously wrong, as people clearly do it for both, esp personal gain.

I can confirm this to be true as several times clients have told me they’re “only putting in a claim for some cash”. Not all of course and not even anywhere close to ‘most’. But there are plenty of people out there that do.

[Carth]

Originally Posted by RichardCoulter

Your suggestion that those wronged who turn to legal redress are doing it for personal gain or the satisfaction of smugly seeing others 'trip over' is as wrong as it is incorrect. These type of remarks are likely to cause offence, so anyone who fears 'tripping over' would be wise to start watching where they are going.

Sounds like a threat to me, it probably isn't, but it certainly could be construed as one, and under new rules could possibly be termed abusive.

[RichardCoulter]

Just been on the news that the committee scrutinising the Online Harms Bill doesn't think that it goes far enough. They believe that certain things should be made outright illegal before they are even posted and subsequently dealt with eg encouraging suicide, cyber flashing etc.

They have concluded that the fine line between freedom of speech and protecting vulnerable people from online harm hasn't been met voluntarily by websites.

In addition, they believe that ISP's should be made more responsible for online harm prevention too.

[Carth]

Originally Posted by RichardCoulter

Just been on the news that the committee scrutinising the Online Harms Bill doesn't think that it goes far enough. They believe that certain things should be made outright illegal before they are even posted and subsequently dealt with eg encouraging suicide, cyber flashing etc.

They have concluded that the fine line between freedom of speech and protecting vulnerable people from online harm hasn't been met voluntarily by websites.

In addition, they believe that ISP's should be made more responsible for online harm prevention too.

I wonder just how they are going to make that work?

Will ISP's have to employ an army of people who's role and responsibility is to do nothing but trawl the internet looking for breaches of the 'new' rules?

It can't be even more algorithms thrown into computer programs that constantly scan web pages, because they just spot words and phrases, not intent or subtle innuendo.

No, it will still be people 'reporting' posts where they believe something now 'illegal' has been written, therefore a 'crime' has been committed hasn't it.

Originally Posted by Carth

Just look at how many times on this forum, that a MOD has had to step in and tell people to cool down . . then take it a stage further where instead of warning people, you have to (by law) report them to the authorities as 'posts that could be construed as offensive'

That could eventually lead to bye bye forum, closed down and possibly fines handed out. Do we want it to reach that stage?

[Russ]

Originally Posted by Carth

No, it will still be people 'reporting' posts where they believe something now 'illegal' has been written, therefore a 'crime' has been committed hasn't it.

Yep

Yesterday it emerged that a Labour MP had reported a student to the authorities at Bristol University for what she considered a death threat.
Verity Phillips, 20, tweeted to local MP Thangam Debbonaire that she should ‘get in the sea’ – a regular dismissive phrase used on Twitter.
The politician replied: ‘This person has just told me to drown – I believe that is a threat to kill.’