Internet trolls face up to two years in jail under new UK laws

Internet trolls could face up to two years in jail under new laws, Justice Secretary Chris Grayling has said.

He told the Mail on Sunday quadrupling the current maximum six-month term showed his determination to "take a stand against a baying cyber-mob".

The plan has been announced days after TV presenter Chloe Madeley suffered online abuse, which Mr Grayling described as "crude and degrading".

Magistrates could pass serious cases on to crown courts under the new measures.

Mr Grayling told the newspaper: "These internet trolls are cowards who are poisoning our national life.

"No-one would permit such venom in person, so there should be no place for it on social media. That is why we are determined to quadruple the current six-month sentence."

Miss Madeley received threats after defending her mother Judy Finnigan's comments on a rape committed by footballer Ched Evans, which she said was "non-violent" and did not cause "bodily harm".

Richard Madeley has said "prosecution awaits" those who sent "sick rape threats" to his daughter.

The justice secretary said: "As the terrible case of Chloe Madeley showed last week, people are being abused online in the most crude and degrading fashion.

Read More: http://www.bbc.com/news/uk-29678989

-- BBC 2014-10-19

So that means half this forum are having porridge for breakfast.

So that means half this forum are having porridge for breakfast.

The story says "trolls" but the story reads cyber-bullies (online assault).

If you did that online here you and your posts would probably not last long enough for you to be charged.

2 years for internet trolls, thieves don't even get that.

I am sure there are number of posters who are nervous....very nervous.

Hopefully they won't have access to a computer while in jail.

"Crude and degrading" = sticks and stones etc.

Threats of harm and rape is another matter. It should be a crime whether online or in person. That is assault.

With all due respect to another poster's breakfast of porridge, I don't think anyone on here does that.

I find it alleviates boredom when politicians use colourful language. Thus I appreciate the Justice Secretary's use of "a baying cyber-mob" of "cowards who are poisoning our national life".

But I'm not too sure about "a mob of cowards".

It's a good move. I believe a lot of it is perpetrated by little kids, though all ages are at it and it goes across both sexes. Some of the bile spewed forth on YouTube, for example, for even the most benign of comments is ridiculous. As someone else mentioned, there's a big difference between trolling for kicks or attention (the likes of which you would see on here) and bullying, such as rape or death threats. How many of those people would say that stuff in person? Gutless cowards. Draw them out, embarrass them in the dock ad lock em up.

In view of poor definition of 'trolling' this is a huge step back in freedom of expression. Especially for UK.>

Expression of alternative views always was objectionable. America was a 'troll' to monarchies of Europe.>

Calvin and Luther were 'trolls' to Vatican. Christians are 'trolls' to Islamists and vice-versa.>

I am as much a Troll as I am a Fairy. Just another man with a different personal view.

 

I find it alleviates boredom when politicians use colourful language. Thus I appreciate the Justice Secretary's use of "a baying cyber-mob" of "cowards who are poisoning our national life".

But I'm not too sure about "a mob of cowards".

Some people here would think one of us is a 'troll'. But I am not with them. We just have different tastes.

What you 'appreciate' - I do not. To me it is a mob pleasing language characteristic for Lenin, Mao and Hitler.

Name-calling does nothing to prove any point except it proves how far UK is gone.

Thats because people are overusing the term. People troll. It's just other folks who think everything that conflicts with themselves is the work of trolling.

Cyber bullying is certainly different.

In countries with the most freedom of speech, there are limits. You can't yell "Fire" in a crowded theater if there is no fire. You can't threaten someone or there will be criminal or civil penalties. A person might have a right to defend himself against threats in a way you don't want.

As a matter of humanity, no one should have to accept threats of bodily harm or rape, etc.

I have no problem with this, threatening the harm someone either verbally or in writing should be punnished - simple as that

I can remember a time, not that long ago when the British people were renowned throughout the world for their stiff upper lip and their sterling resolve under adversity. Today they seem to be a nation of spineless, gutless, thin skinned bleeding heart victims who blame everything and anyone apart from themselves for any mistakes and seek compensation for all of life's little falls.

Pathetic in other words !

Don't people know how to just press delete ?

Some of the online abuse and threats that are made are appalling. There is a difference in some of the mickey taking and wind up going on here, and the moderation makes sure that sort of thing doesn't happen.

You can't yell "Fire" in a crowded theater if there is no fire.

Bit off topic but that is not correct and historically in error - look up Schenck vs United States (Oliver Wendell Holmes) were it initiated from.

Its all about controlling the internet media and this and "cyber terrorism" are the excuses to do it. Wise up folks.

I can remember a time, not that long ago when the British people were renowned throughout the world for their stiff upper lip and their sterling resolve under adversity. Today they seem to be a nation of spineless, gutless, thin skinned bleeding heart victims who blame everything and anyone apart from themselves for any mistakes and seek compensation for all of life's little falls.

Pathetic in other words !

Don't people know how to just press delete ?

The world when we can press 'delete' and those who live their fantasies in the 'ether' no longer exist is at very least a way off. In the current world some of those who practice on the internet eventually work up the courage to join this list http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_serial_killers_by_number_of_victims et al

Deal with those issues before dis-ease turns into disease.

The fact of the matter is that keyboards have replaced oratory skills and reasoned debate. The internet allows anonymous threats, name calling, derogatory remarks, and hate speech with little or no accountability or responsibility. The moderators do a yeoman's job on this website and I, for one, am grateful for their sensible intervention when messages cross the line. Having said that, a lot more could be done to show mutual respect of each others' opinions without the need to insult and demean another person's point of view. It's become an internet 'sport' and It is a 'sport' in which I will not participate.

I can just picture this scene in jail:

What you in for - murder.

And you - rape.

I'm here for cyber trolling...........

You can't yell "Fire" in a crowded theater if there is no fire.

Bit off topic but that is not correct and historically in error - look up Schenck vs United States (Oliver Wendell Holmes) were it initiated from.

I don't understand. That is one of the US Supreme Courts most famous sayings when discussing freedom of speech.

"The opinion's most famous and most often quoted passage was this:"

"The most stringent protection of free speech would not protect a man in falsely shouting fire in a theatre and causing a panic. The question in every case is whether the words used are used in such circumstances and are of such a nature as to create a clear and present danger that they will bring about the substantive evils that Congress has a right to prevent."

--Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes, Jr.

LINK

"Baying cyber mob". My first thought was Thai visa forum. Chokey here we come!

Sent from my i-mobile IQ 1 using Thaivisa Connect Thailand mobile app

The story says "trolls" but the story reads cyber-bullies (online assault).

If you did that online here you and your posts would probably not last long enough for you to be charged.

Your first sentence, yes. And people who don't know the difference certainly should not have any trust at all to make laws about it.

I don't understand. That is one of the US Supreme Courts most famous sayings when discussing freedom of speech.

"The opinion's most famous and most often quoted passage was this:"

"The most stringent protection of free speech would not protect a man in falsely shouting fire in a theatre and causing a panic. The question in every case is whether the words used are used in such circumstances and are of such a nature as to create a clear and present danger that they will bring about the substantive evils that Congress has a right to prevent."

--Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes, Jr.

LINK

And additionally "clear and present danger" has been very, very closely and strictly defined. There are virtually no convictions under this definition.

None of the examples of the silly law-pusher of the OP are anything close to "clear and present danger", which is why actual free-speech laws (US) should never be compared with the British censorship laws and dangerous enemies of free speech like the extremely silly Mr Gralying.

 

I find it alleviates boredom when politicians use colourful language. Thus I appreciate the Justice Secretary's use of "a baying cyber-mob" of "cowards who are poisoning our national life".

But I'm not too sure about "a mob of cowards".

Some people here would think one of us is a 'troll'. But I am not with them. We just have different tastes.

What you 'appreciate' - I do not. To me it is a mob pleasing language characteristic for Lenin, Mao and Hitler.

Name-calling does nothing to prove any point except it proves how far UK is gone.

To be absolutely clear: I wouldn't necessarily disagree with you entirely.

Hope they don't catch me, I'll just hide in TV as usual.

Not just needed in the uk worldwide would be a challenge to say the least.

Good to see.....and troll callers get a nice tutu to wear while they pee their pants with nervous caution..

In view of poor definition of 'trolling' this is a huge step back in freedom of expression. Especially for UK.>

Expression of alternative views always was objectionable. America was a 'troll' to monarchies of Europe.>

Calvin and Luther were 'trolls' to Vatican. Christians are 'trolls' to Islamists and vice-versa.>

I am as much a Troll as I am a Fairy. Just another man with a different personal view.

Finally "coming out".

No shame in that ...at least we all know now and can reply to your posts accordingly.

What a pathetic nanny state the uk has become.

That is a very slippery slope. How do they plan on defining a troll? Protesters complaining about corporations or governments?