Police to get tough on internet trolls.

[Russ]

Originally Posted by RichardCoulter

Absolutely, maybe some good can come out of this though and it will encourage more people to think twice before uploading anything objectionable on the internet.

"Objectionable" is subjective and just an opinion. And just because someone considers an action to be objectionable does not automatically mean anything needs to be done about it.

IMO there are far too many "I don't like it so I want it banned" types out there. Don't get me wrong, there does need to be regulation on what is broadcasted/transmitted etc.

There are plenty of things I've seen/read/heard online that have offended me. Unless it has broken the law my default reaction is to switch off, leave the website, look elsewhere etc. The world does not revolve around what I like or dislike.

The Grenfell bonfire idiots - should they be prosecuted? I'm not sure which law they've broken, Not 100% certain a Public Order charge will stick. Were they stupid to do it and do they deserve the wrath of the public? I'd say hell-to-the-yeah. Should they have been stopped from uploading that video of them doing what they did? I disagree. Sure it must have been upsetting for the relatives of the victims but if someone wants to show footage of how stupid they are then I say go right ahead.

[RichardCoulter]

Originally Posted by Paul M

Objectionable in whose opinion ?

Well, it could be anybody who is sent or comes across the material.

---------- Post added at 18:21 ---------- Previous post was at 18:17 ----------

Originally Posted by denphone

A former chief prosecutors view.

Apparently, they are currently being dealt with under a law more serious than section 5 of the Public Order Act because Theresa May changed it. Until she did this, it was possible to prosecute somebody who would have been offended by something if they had of been there at the time it took place (but were not).

---------- Post added at 18:24 ---------- Previous post was at 18:21 ----------

Originally Posted by Pierre

once you go down this road, it's a hand cart to hell.

You make offending someone a criminal act.

In regards to this particular stunt, did I find it funny....no, did I think it in poor taste....yes. Was I offended by it........NO.

If I had friends or relatives die in that tower of course I would think differently.......but it's still subjective.

to use the Malicious Communications Act is tenuous and I don't think it was written for this type of incident.

https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1988/27/section/1

it's more to do with a directed attack on an individual, not something that is broadcast.

The law is supposed to protect everyone, not just things that affect us personally.

---------- Post added at 18:28 ---------- Previous post was at 18:24 ----------

Originally Posted by Hugh

And up to 10 years ago, there wasn’t the instant connectivity/escalation/viral explosions of stuff like this, due to social media and click bait headlines in the online media, and the need to fill the 24x7 news cycle.

The internet is a major part of the issue itself. If someone says something verbally offensive or sends them something offensive in the post that's one thing, but to effectively do it in front of potentially millions of other people makes it a whole different ball game.

It's much more serious and evidence is easier to obtain.

---------- Post added at 18:34 ---------- Previous post was at 18:28 ----------

Originally Posted by Russ

"Objectionable" is subjective and just an opinion. And just because someone considers an action to be objectionable does not automatically mean anything needs to be done about it.

IMO there are far too many "I don't like it so I want it banned" types out there. Don't get me wrong, there does need to be regulation on what is broadcasted/transmitted etc.

There are plenty of things I've seen/read/heard online that have offended me. Unless it has broken the law my default reaction is to switch off, leave the website, look elsewhere etc. The world does not revolve around what I like or dislike.

The Grenfell bonfire idiots - should they be prosecuted? I'm not sure which law they've broken, Not 100% certain a Public Order charge will stick. Were they stupid to do it and do they deserve the wrath of the public? I'd say hell-to-the-yeah. Should they have been stopped from uploading that video of them doing what they did? I disagree. Sure it must have been upsetting for the relatives of the victims but if someone wants to show footage of how stupid they are then I say go right ahead.

Objectional is subjective I agree e.g. a vegan may find footage of the slaughter of animals offensive, whilst many will not.

To deal with this, i'm assuming that the UK will take on a large number of properly trained moderators and have transparent policies, guidelines etc that can be appealed against, so that the new initiative to deal with online offences won't become too burdensome on the police or judicial system.

[Hom3r]

Originally Posted by Julian

Respect has to be earned it is not a given.

Or give it to take away.

[Russ]

Originally Posted by RichardCoulter

To deal with this, i'm assuming that the UK will take on a large number of properly trained moderators and have transparent policies, guidelines etc that can be appealed against, so that the new initiative to deal with online offences won't become too burdensome on the police or judicial system.

Also known as the thought police. Many would say such people already exist in the media.

[OLD BOY]

Originally Posted by RichardCoulter

Well, it could be anybody who is sent or comes across the material.

The law is supposed to protect everyone, not just things that affect us personally.

Well, that just shows that such a law cannot work. Anything you say these days is objectionable according to someone.

You cannot protect everyone from hearing things they don't want to hear. Therein lies madness.

[Russ]

Originally Posted by OLD BOY

Well, that just shows that such a law cannot work. Anything you say these days is objectionable according to someone.

You cannot protect everyone from hearing things they don't want to hear. Therein lies madness.

Exactly. Some people indeed need to grow a pair, others genuinely deserve protecting but deciding who fits in either category is a minefield which will never be without criticism.

[RichardCoulter]

One way round it would be for people to always communicate with others on the internet in a polite, respectful and friendly manner. I think it's the perceived anonymity that brings out the worst in some people.

Snide remarks, malicious sarcasm, questions made in bad faith etc are the preserve of these guys:


https://itstillworks.com/difference-between-troll-cyberbully-5054.html


And yes, there is a difference between a troll and a cyber bully...

Originally Posted by RichardCoulter

One way round it would be for people to always communicate with others on the internet in a polite, respectful and friendly manner.

I cannot quite work out if you really are as naive as you sound, or just on a wind up.

The world is full of different people, with different views, different tastes etc etc.
Its not some fluffy fantasy land full of rainbows, unicorns and everyone being nice to each other.

You cannot police opinion.

Originally Posted by RichardCoulter

I'm assuming that the UK will take on a large number of properly trained moderators

Are you having a laugh (again) ?
The government are cutting back on everything (including real police officers) so they sure as hell aren't going to pay for a load of "moderators".

(and who will be moderating the moderators ?)

[Russ]

Originally Posted by RichardCoulter

One way round it would be for people to always communicate with others on the internet in a polite, respectful and friendly manner.

You're expecting humans to act against human nature? Some less than others undoubtedly but nobody on the planet is capable of being like that 100% of the time.

[RichardCoulter]

Originally Posted by Paul M

I cannot quite work out if you really are as naive as you sound, or just on a wind up.

The world is full of different people, with different views, different tastes etc etc.
Its not some fluffy fantasy land full of rainbows, unicorns and everyone being nice to each other.

You cannot police opinion.


Are you having a laugh (again) ?
The government are cutting back on everything (including real police officers) so they sure as hell aren't going to pay for a load of "moderators".

(and who will be moderating the moderators ?)

It's not the different views etc that are the problem, it's about people treating each other with respect and kindness. Yes, there are some dreadful people in the world, but the goal should be to bring them up to a decent level of communicating with others. Over the years this has slowly but surely improved e.g. terminology routinely used when I was a child is now (at the very least) socially unacceptable.

I think that education is the best way to do it but, unfortunately, more formal action is sometimes neccessary.

The Government wouldn't be paying the salaries of the moderators, if would be the social networking sites etc that would meet the cost if the German model is adopted as Ofcom have proposed. I think there's a good chance that if will be because, as you rightly say, the Government isn't putting enough resources into general policing as it is.

If either party disagreed with the moderator decision, they would be able to take it further, probably Ofcom.

---------- Post added at 13:36 ---------- Previous post was at 13:31 ----------

Originally Posted by Russ

You're expecting humans to act against human nature? Some less than others undoubtedly but nobody on the planet is capable of being like that 100% of the time.

Yes, everybody has their off days or is 'baited', but i'm talking about mean spirited or deliberately malicious things that are uploaded. If it makes people think carefully before posting something then it can only be a good thing.

Free speech is a right not afforded to many in the world and shouldn't be abused.

[RichardCoulter]

This is an interesting link, as somebody tried to run a site with no restrictions on what people were able to say. The result was a tirade of anti semantic, homophobic etc abuse and death threats:

https://www.msn.com/en-gb/news/indep...1_20181109_4_2

It was effectively shut down as payment providers PayPal & Stripe withdrew support, as did the domain owner Go Daddy and server host Joyent.

I agree with the author when he says that free speech is not hate speech and that people should be free to converse, express, debate and discuss, but not to abuse, demonise and vilify others in the process.

[Russ]

Originally Posted by RichardCoulter

Yes, everybody has their off days or is 'baited', but i'm talking about mean spirited or deliberately malicious things that are uploaded.

Who appoints themselves are the decider between those 2?

[RichardCoulter]

Originally Posted by Russ

Who appoints themselves are the decider between those 2?

Under the proposed system, it would be the recipient of such material or someone who comes across it. They would report it to an impartial moderator who would take into account all views and the law after full training had been given. If either party didn't agree with the outcome, they would be free to appeal to a higher body, take their own legal action etc.

I think that the aim would be to settle most incidents amicalably and informally (much like the current ombudsmen services that exist).

[OLD BOY]

Originally Posted by RichardCoulter

Under the proposed system, it would be the recipient of such material or someone who comes across it. They would report it to an impartial moderator who would take into account all views and the law after full training had been given. If either party didn't agree with the outcome, they would be free to appeal to a higher body, take their own legal action etc.

I think that the aim would be to settle most incidents amicalably and informally (much like the current ombudsmen services that exist).

So the snowflakes win. No thanks. Tell them to go to their safe space and stop accessing the internet. Problem solved.

[RichardCoulter]

Originally Posted by OLD BOY

So the snowflakes win. No thanks. Tell them to go to their safe space and stop accessing the internet. Problem solved.

Most people won't notice any difference whatsoever, they'll continue to interact with people from all walks of society in a polite, respectful and friendly manner.

It's the minority who cause problems for others who will have to improve their behaviour if they wish to use the internet.

What is it that you'd want to say that this would prevent you from saying?