News UK proposes harsher sentences for internet abuse

My issue, and I think a lot of other peoples isn't so much the act being defensible, but the inference that somehow because its on the internet its worse.

Get a gang of kids abusing someone on the street (or in there home, as often happens) = ASBO (or crimbo or whatever its called now). Do it online = 2 year jail sentence.

It just seems nuts, and more worryingly like an obvious attempt to introduce further restrictive internet legislation on the grounds of 'protecting the vulnerable'

 

Ah!
I see your confusion, you assumed all parcels are delivered by Royal Mail.

Why not ask for re-delivery?
The same issues with a re-delivery are applicable to the first attempted delivery?

Just to make it clear, I CANNOT GET THE PARCEL IF I HAVE NOT GOT A MEANS OF ID THAT HAS MY MUG ON IT..

Which, i have not.

The man from YODEL says No!

And in the interests of staying on topic....The need to be identified online is now being mission crept into all identification fields.
The powers that be are trying really hard to link a recent photo, a mobile phone contract, your Google activity, your social media activity, your medical history, your property value, your net monetary worth, your insurance rating, your credit rating, your political persuasion, your gender and sexual preference and your general life interests....God bless RIPA.

 

aside the random ranting - unless its not your home address , then yodel only ask you to sign for the parcel....

 

Exactly, just because a computer is involved doesn't make it better or worse.

Would have made much more sense to just extend existing laws relating to threatening letters and such to also apply to online threats.

 

^This^ 100% ^This^

For some reason because it's the Internet and involves celebrities, it's some how worse.
Worse than say, beating someone up because of the color of their skin, giving someone a flash of your privates, or carrying a knife.

Caveat emptor, if people aren't aware that the world has some very nasty people in it, that they need to be aware of these nasty people. Then why should we be changing laws to protect them from their own imbecility, or naiveness.

 

It's oversimplifying the issue a lot, but the way I see it is, if you don't want people to say bad stuff about you or to you then keep your mouth shut and don't say dumb stuff and if you really really must say something, think about what your about to say first.

 

I feel that is the question in hand. Where is the distinction, over any medium this could happen why have social networks been treated differently.

 

We should be defending peoples right to be utter dicks, that's what freedom of speech is about.
Where it crosses the line is when it goes from being an utter dick, to threatening someone with physical harm.

Then again the police haven't got around to arresting all those dirty b****rds on that list the Canadian police gave them yet, so I'm not sure how much of a priority some social media troll is going to be.

 

Corky nailed it.

"Then again the police haven't got around to arresting all those dirty b****rds on that list the Canadian police gave them yet, so I'm not sure how much of a priority some social media troll is going to be".

It is what suits their needs, surveillance and net anonymity is much more important to politicians and police than sexual exploitation of minors.

 

There was an interview with the head of the Bar Association on Law in Action this afternoon, who has just completed her review - her recommendation was that sentencing stays as is, but that everything be done to speed law enforcement by ensuring Twitter, Facebook et al. have knowledge of who is using their services and be compelled to share that info with police.

Talk about a slippery slope...

 

So nothing new then ?

RIPA and DRIP have already made it possible for the police to know who is doing what and when on the internet, who is phoning who and when. Adding Twitter and Facebook to the list of companies that are compelled by law to keep track of their customers probably won't change much.

After all it's not like the police would abuse such a power or anything is it.

 

Or they could learn to walk before they learn to run and start taking the kids who complain about abuse right under their nose serious because as the Rotherham scandal has revealed they still can't even get the basics right.

 

Agreed. They will learn to stfu, or pay the well-deserved penalty.

 

No, we should defend the right to speak and be heard, NOT to be utter dicks. The FB page of a child who committed suicide due to being bullied by UTTER DICKS, is not the place to find more UTTER DICKS.

 

The right to free speech does not mean the right to be protected from the consequences.

 

And by what, or whose definition of "utter dick" are we going on ?
Yours, mine, the governments ? We already know their idea of what counts as extremist is a somewhat moving target, along with many other labels we as a society like to attach to people.

While i do agree with you, i would like to add a caveat if i may
Unless those consequences involve threats to cause physical or actual physical harm.