News UK proposes harsher sentences for internet abuse

So making abusive comments over social networking services is now going to be on par with racially-aggravated common assault, flashing, carrying a knife, abduction, and some types of incest.

If only people could choose not to use social networking services.

 

I agree, the whole thing seems to be blown out of all proportion. There hasn't been a day in the last couple of weeks where there hasn't been some kind of shrill news story about the evils of Internet trolls.

People are dicks on the Internet just like in real life, the thing that really winds me up is the lack of parity. Twitter etc seems to be being treated with the same brush as a newspaper, when really (huge publicity accounts excepted) it's more like a conversation in a crowded public place.

 

Can only be a good thing, I know a friends kid who was abused on facebook, The offenders got Criminal records for 18months for it.

 

I think it's perfectly reasonable for people to be able to use social networking without encountering some of the hate-fueled vitriol that this law is targeting.

Threats of death and rape are serious in my eyes regardless of the medium used to make them. Suggesting that people could chose to not use social networking is on par with saying that victims of rape should not have worn provocative clothing; it's putting the blame squarely on the victim rather than the offender.

This is not intended for garden variety trolls- of which the internet is awash- but the most serious offenders who can bring misery and terror into the lives of the target. If you act like a sociopath you should be treated like one.

 

And i would agree that threats of death and rape are serious, but are we suggesting that making those threats on social networking services should carry the same sentence as causing physical harm to someone because of the color of their skin ?

Or a four fold sentence increase over sending someone a letter with those same threats ? I would be more worried if someone threatened me physical harm via a letter.

If it's a letter they know where i live, if it's on a social networking services you have to ask how the person making the threats is going to carry them out, after all you haven't told everyone where you live, or what your real name is or anything silly like that.

 

so its ok for :
http://news.sky.com/story/1355289/ched-evans-campaigner-reveals-vicious-abuse

and

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-29411031
and

http://www.mirror.co.uk/3am/celebrity-news/chloe-madeley-victim-vile-twitter-4440056

so its ok to say on an internet forum , or social media - I want to rape you till you are dead.??

twitter is instant news , facebook have `kill pedo`s pages - and whose owners have been prosecuted for getting it wrong.... you need to keep up with the times , social media is THE way forward , printed media is dying and look at the level of interaction on broadcast news and social media.


and do I even need to start about IS and the videos they release.

its about time the law catches up with the real world. screaming `im going to rape you`in a crowded public place.

will get a few people going ` oi mate what the ****` and the police being called.

 

I thought the world had gone global, trade, people, travel etc. but communication and community still seems to be seen as UK only with geographical limitations.

 

At last, families who suffered tragic losses are getting another punishment on the internet in the worst way. The people the government are talking about lack any empathy, they are true psychopaths that are never really going to contribute to society any ways.

 

What's the punishment for harassment/verbal abuse/threats that takes place face-to-face?

 

They can choose not to act like utter dicks on social networking services.

 

Depends.

Going on information i gathered from here it says..

• Offenses involving threats = Life
• Making threats to kill = 10 years
• Procurement of a woman by threats = 2 years
• Racially aggravated harassment/putting another in fear of violence = 2 years
• Putting people in fear of violence= 5 years

True. But what makes acting like an utter dick on social networking services different than doing that via any other form of communication.

 

The kind of internet trolls being targeted here are of the nastiest kind, hiding behind their keyboards like demented hobgoblins. It is high time their activities were treated more seriously and harsher sentences imposed, they ruin peoples lives, some even driven to suicide.

 

I don't see why they don't amend the current laws to include non face-to-face events. That would make the most sense to me.

Cheers Corky for finding that info.

 

Think of it less as communication, and more like griefing.

First, it is uniquely public. Second, it relies on that publicity to garner support from other griefers to join in a (sometimes coordinated) team effort aimed at undermining a person's psychological wellbeing. This adds incitement to the list. Third, it is persistent: once it's out there, it's out there, so the impact is cumulative and long-term. So it arguably constitutes harassment.

 

Nope, sorry you've lost me, i can't see the similarity between communication & griefing.

Don't get me wrong, I'm not saying harassment or threats on social networking services shouldn't be acted upon, it just seems this statement from Chris Grayling is a poor attempt to garner some positive PR in the wake of the recent Madeley families high profile social media abuse.

The example you use of social networking services being public, out there forever, group effort, etc, etc. Those are all true, but then we face the problem of how to identify the ring leader, or do we arrest them all.
IDK as I'm not a member of any social networking services, but can't undesirable people be ignored/blocked, have what they said deleted by the account holder ?

 

no? within the UK `geographical and community` - laws can do something about it - and if necessary Interpol can be used for external threats.

 

All this is about generally is, no Anonymous internet accounts.

The powers that be always add a morally repugnant slant to it in order to get the mass kneejerk effect it requires.
Dont get me wrong the incitement to subject a person to murder, rape, violence is deplorable on all aspects.
The trolls can be deeply nasty and personal, there is no moral compass with them at all.

So will the government be building new prisons to house these numerous idiots? No.

Will it make your access on to the internet more restrictive? Yes.

They will want you to sign in with a credit card, passport, driving licence at first, then eventually with a biometric or a sample of your dna or a dissectional slice of your kidney or maybe send them a sample of your monday morning stool or something.

They want every internet user to be accountable, traceable and trackable. But obviously not the uber-rich and powerful, we don't want them to be censored or accessible, especially to the working classes.

Got a parcel delivered (nearly) today...i paid for it on my credit card a few days ago, in my name, at my address..they would not let me have the parcel i had payed for because i did not have:

a valid photo passport...er no. .. (out of date by 1 year)
a photo driving licence...er no. (Still got the paper one).
a forces identity card...er no (i would never want one thanks).
a trade union photo members card...er no ( i would rather have a dose of pox)

Parcel returned to depot.
Order cancelled.
Money refunded.

 

erm why not just request a redelivery??

edit:
You can use the following forms of ID:
• Credit or debit card
• Bank or building society cheque book
• Bank or building society savings book
• Valid passport
• Driving licence
• NHS Medical Card
• Photo Identity Card (Foreign National, Military, Police Warrant, Royal Mail Employee


http://www.royalmail.com/personal/help-and-support/Ive-received-a-Something-for-you-card


so why didn't you get your parcel??