Websites Will Be Forced To Identify Trolls

http://news.sky.com/home/uk-news/article/16245551

Video on Sky News



Websites will be legally obliged to provide victims with the identity of people who post abusive and defamatory online messages about them under plans by the Government.

Major reforms of the libel laws will also see internet service providers (ISPs) given greater protection from being sued if they help to identify so-called trolls.

Would-be claimants will have to show they have suffered serious harm to their reputations, or are likely to do so, before they can take a defamation case forward.

It comes after a mother who was targeted by online trolls won backing from the High Court to have her tormentors' identities disclosed.

Nicola Brookes, 45, faced "vicious and depraved" abuse on Facebook after she posted a comment supporting former X Factor contestant Frankie Cocozza when he left the show last year.

The Defamation Bill will be debated in the House of Commons later today.

Sky News political correspondent Glen Oglaza said the reforms have widespread support across the parties, so the Bill should make its progress through Parliament pretty quickly.

"What they're saying is, enough is enough of this cyber-bullying and abuse that's going on, on websites like Twitter and Facebook," he said.

"It's a difficult position because although in theory Facebook and Twitter are the publishers in a way that books and newspapers, and for that matter television companies are, they don't have the same amount of control over what appears and therefore, it's more difficult to prosecute them and sue them for libel because in some ways, they're not responsible."

However, Scott Freeman, who set up the charity Cybersmile when his daughter became a victim of trolls, said the reforms do not go far enough.

"It needs to be a criminal offence, there needs to be legislation covering cyber-bullying. It's no good with civil lawsuits," he told Sky News.

"It needs to be addressed. It's one in three children now throughout the UK, and it's affecting adults. It's terrible and civil lawsuits are not enough. They're unrealistic."

Justice Secretary Ken Clarke said the Government wants a libel regime for the internet that makes it possible for people to protect their reputations but also ensures that information online cannot be easily censored.

"As the law stands, individuals can be the subject of scurrilous rumour and allegation on the web with little meaningful remedy against the person responsible," he said.

"Website operators are in principle liable as publishers for everything that appears on their sites, even though the content is often determined by users.

"But most operators are not in a position to know whether the material posted is defamatory or not and very often - faced with a complaint - they will immediately remove material.

"Our proposed approach will mean that website operators have a defence against libel as long as they comply with a procedure to help identify the authors of allegedly defamatory material."

He added: "It will be very important to ensure that these measures do not inadvertently expose genuine whistleblowers, and we are committed to getting the detail right to minimise this risk."

Frank Zimmerman narrowly escaped jail when a judge suspended a 26-week prison sentence for two years after he sent a threatening email to Conservative MP Louise Mensch.

The 60-year-old posed as a member of online hacking group Anonymous and sent the mother-of-three an email telling her she would have to choose which one of her children would die.

In another case, 21-year-old student Liam Stacey, from Pontypridd in South Wales, was jailed for 56 days for mocking Bolton footballer Fabrice Muamba on Twitter after he collapsed with a heart attack.

The Bill will also replace the common law defences of justification and fair comment with new statutory defences of truth and honest opinion.

The so-called Reynolds defence of responsible journalism published in the public interest also gets statutory recognition, as responsible publication on a matter of public interest.

I could see the point of granting Legal Aid in these Cases, rather than offering it to the likes of Bennett who is the perpetrator in this instance. That just makes a mockery of The Law. Free Legal Defence to defame whoever you like. If Bennett gets away with this and receives Legal Aid it will open a flood gate to the likes of Laffin Thug.

Sabot, I think society has had enough of them. It is very telling that the abuse these victims have been receiving is almost identical to the abuse hurled at the McCanns, and at anyone who dares support them.

IMO, there is a section of society which really should be quarantined away from normal, decent people.

Far from using the internet as it was intended, they've turned it into a Devil's playground, with the likes of them victimising and terrorising anyone they point their grubby fingers at.

Look at the hatefest going on over Lindy Chamberlain today. They don't care that they are abusing an innocent woman who lost her child, and was wrongly jailed - THEY ARE ENJOYING THEMSELVES.

A few hundred years ago, they would have been shrieking, BURN THE WITCH.

A few decades ago, they would have been at the head of crazed, bloodthirsty mobs in the Deep South, enjoying themselves lynching innocent black men and women.

These bottomfeeders have always been around, and they've dragged the internet down to their level.

It's about time their sick games were stopped by normal, decent society.

For five long and often stressful years we have been watching this, Bonny. And for the last three years at least, we have somewhat successfully been fighting back. We have been supporting Kate and Gerry McCann, providing information to Carter Ruck and The Police, and we have been putting the truth out there. So Web Sites like this deserve some credit for what is happening now.
Yes, I expect that we have wound up some of them, but they would have come to their excesses all by themselves eventually, as has been proven in unrelated Cases.
But we can't fight them all, although I have put my oar in on The Mail today where they are having another Hate Fest about Casey Anthony. I am not interested in what she actually did because no one proved anything. She was Acquitted, and that should be the end of it.
And so was Lindy Chamberlaine Acquitted, but even now that The Coroner has ruled that Azaria was taken by a Dingo, they are still at it. How can they not see that a large Wild Dog can take a baby, especially as it is known to have happened before. But most of this evidence comes from Aborigines, and who the hell are they? Only the people most likely to know. But their evidence was considered to be worthless, and not even heard.
My sister lost two very large Geese to a fox, and foxes aren't nearly as large as dingos.

Anyway, carry on fighting. We are making a difference. Although I have to say that I have sometimes wondered.

It's isn't the McCanns - it's them, Sabot. They do it over, and over, and over, again. They ENJOY it.

That is why I have such contempt for them - the only difference between them and witchburning bigots and lynch mobs is that they are doing it on the internet. But they'd do it in real life if they thought they could get away with it.

Notice how it is almost always women they target, just like the witchburning bigots? Very telling is that.

bb1 wrote:It's isn't the McCanns - it's them, Sabot. They do it over, and over, and over, again. They ENJOY it.

That is why I have such contempt for them - the only difference between them and witchburning bigots and lynch mobs is that they are doing it on the internet. But they'd do it in real life if they thought they could get away with it.

Notice how it is almost always women they target, just like the witchburning bigots? Very telling is that.

Here's another one from The Tazzy Marsupial. Nasty little two faced liar.

And Yes, they do mostly attack women, and they would do it in public if they thought they could get away with it. Bennett tried that with his leaflets, but it was always a Mob Handed effort. None of them would dare to try it alone.


Re: dingo is in the clear over baby azaria
Justiceforallkids Today at 9:56

i have to give credit to lindy she just said on natinal tv that she doesnt want to sue anyone or the nt goverment she said she just wanted the people who were there that night not be called liars i have never really thought she did it i admit sometimes i have wondered but itsa hard thing to now what to think she also said tonight that the police put the clothes back folded

I've just looked, Sabot - she's done a complete volte-face since she started that thread with such ghoulish excitement:

Re: dingo is in the clear over baby azaria
Justiceforallkids Today
a couple didnt kidnap her there was blood all over the babys clothes i believe a dingo did it

Really, what's the point of her?

I wonder if Zoe-Midas-Pillock troll is looking forward to starring in the Sun? She has got to be pretty near the top of the troll list, given her incessant hatespamming under her various names.

And she is rather high-profile, courtesy of Bennett revealing her as his 'spy' in Cheshire.

ETA:

http://thehoundingofthemccans.blogspot.co.uk/2012/06/websites-will-be-forced-to-identify.html

bb1 wrote:I've just looked, Sabot - she's done a complete volte-face since she started that thread with such ghoulish excitement:

Re: dingo is in the clear over baby azaria
Justiceforallkids Today
a couple didnt kidnap her there was blood all over the babys clothes i believe a dingo did it

Really, what's the point of her?

You beat me to it on that one, Bonny. Thank you, and goodnight, Carly. Carly has spoken, so you can all go home now, her being the epitamy of Australian Opinion, oft changed. One can only thank God that she won't ever qualify for Jury Service, although I expect she would be in there like a Ferret up a trouser leg, given half a chance.
She obviously values some opinions more than others, especially as AnnaEsse doesn't seem to be Pitch Forking this particular Thread.

And she bloody well did say that Lindy Chamberlaine killed her baby, which made The McCanns as bad as her. Until I pointed out that Lindy Chamberlaine was not a good example of The McCann's guilt, since she had been wrongfully convicted on public opinion and a botched investigation.

Sorry, I do try to drop my obsession with this awful specimen of humanity, but it is mortal hard.

LOOKAMEEE!!!! isn't worth your blood pressure, Sabot, she changes her views according to who she is trying to keep in with.

bb1 wrote:I wonder if Zoe-Midas-Pillock troll is looking forward to starring in the Sun? She has got to be pretty near the top of the troll list, given her incessant hatespamming under her various names.

And she is rather high-profile, courtesy of Bennett revealing her as his 'spy' in Cheshire.

ETA:

http://thehoundingofthemccans.blogspot.co.uk/2012/06/websites-will-be-forced-to-identify.html

So, it's going to be okay if it's just some poor woman who can't prove that her reputation has suffered? Not good enough. These are the sort of people that Bennett often picks on.

I know, they always pick on people they percieve as weak, don't they?

Of course, the owners of Twitter and fb could always try cleaning up their sites, as that is where almost all the trouble is coming from.....

Market forces may deal with fb; twitter really has to clean up its act and lay down a few rules about its use.

bb1 wrote:LOOKAMEEE!!!! isn't worth your blood pressure, Sabot, she changes her views according to who she is trying to keep in with.

I know she does, Bonny. She has always done this. But she is quite vicious on occasions, while hiding behind her disabilities, what ever they might be. I've never managed to work that one out. Just exactly what does she suffer from? Apart from a spiteful desire to hurt people that she doesn't even know.

I saw this remark elsewhere - not, I stress, on a McCann-related site:

Anyone who professes to be offended, has the inalienable right to ignore it. Nothing more.

Typical Free Speach bully. That one thinks it has the right to say anything it wants about people, and they should just ignore it. All very nice, but the bots don't ignore it, and whatever filth some Free Speach troll has posted about their victim stays on the internet for their family, friends, employers, etc., to find.

The filth and hatred spewed onto the internet has as much to do with genuine free speech as storing Kalashnikovs at home has to do with the right to bear arms in case the Redcoats or Indians attack.

Ignore LOOKAMEE!!, Sabot, she is doing it on purpose to get a reaction out of you. She has no idea how lucky she is that no-one has ever 'reacted' to her by slapping a lawsuit on her for some of her internet antics. She's not worth the hassle, though.

http://thehoundingofthemccans.blogspot.co.uk/2012/06/so-rumors-are-true-thendodgy-is-going.html

That right, Tony? Zoe-Midas-Pillock can't be far behind.

bb1 wrote:http://thehoundingofthemccans.blogspot.co.uk/2012/06/so-rumors-are-true-thendodgy-is-going.html

That right, Tony? Zoe-Midas-Pillock can't be far behind.

So a whopping big bird tells me

Looking forward to.

bb1 wrote:Looking forward to.

And, if Zoe J is the Rothly Pillow, well, HoHum

Pillock and a few others, Tony. She's fallen a long way since she burst onto the scene as 'Midas' the day of the Rothley Stalking.

crazytony wrote:

bb1 wrote:http://thehoundingofthemccans.blogspot.co.uk/2012/06/so-rumors-are-true-thendodgy-is-going.html

That right, Tony? Zoe-Midas-Pillock can't be far behind.

So a whopping big bird tells me

Well, using the good doctor's name in that despicable way was repugnant. I hope they get the cretin good.

I marvel at David Payne's self control. He almost certainly doesn't want to detract from the search for Madeleine, which is why he has done nothing about the vile things that have been said about him. He is an honourable man.

He was never in a position to do anything about that ghastly waffle submitted by Katerina Gaspar because it was a privileged statement, but he undoubtedly could have done something about Amaral and various media and social networks.
I admire him enormously.

He has a lot of something the forkers know nothing about in their lives. It's called class.

I agree with the title of this topic.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/debate/article-2158120/Freedom-speech-mean-freedom-abuse-As-victim-I-welcome-plans-unmask-cowardly-internet-trolls.html#ixzz1xepDoOHW

Freedom of speech should never mean freedom to abuse. As a victim, I welcome plans to unmask cowardly internet trolls

By Dominique Jackson

I am not a particular fan of fragrant MP Louise Daphne Mensch, née Bagshawe. The ubiquitous, former chick lit author is a little brash for my tastes while her highly selective candour (confessing to drugs and drunken dancing yet remaining coy on cosmetic surgery), is simply having her cake and eating it.

However, I did sympathise when she became the victim of a persistent internet troll, who sent her a rash of highly offensive, expletive-ridden, ranting messages, including one which threatened the lives of her children. I have had my own fair share of malicious trolling and I am well acquainted with the mental anguish this particularly specious strand of unjust and unwarranted bullying can occasion.

Yet not even a brazen, publicity-seeking politician like Ms Mensch deserves the kind of treatment meted out to her by 60-year old Frank Zimmerman who this week was given a suspended jail sentence and placed under a restraining order by a judge considering Zimmerman’s persistent targeting of public figures including Lord Sugar, General Sir Michael Jackson and CIA Director David Petraeus.

Images of a long grey-haired, dishevelled and straggly-bearded Zimmerman in the press this week conformed closely to our stereotype of the internet troll: a cowardly loner, spending hours hunched over the keyboard, spitting out minatory venom from the relative safety of a cranky pseudonym and a potentially anonymous IP address.

Yet trolls come in all shapes and sizes and many are not necessarily anonymous. The extraordinarily rapid rise of social media over the last few years and the concomitant ease with which a formerly powerless audience can now communicate their approval, and, of course, their displeasure, has seen an exponential rise in this kind of trolling behaviour and general abuse, with cases of online defamation doubling year on year.

That is why we should give a cautious welcome to Justice Secretary Ken Clarke’s new proposals to oblige internet service providers to unmask the online bullies who are using their websites to post defamatory messages so that innocent victims do not need to resort to costly legal action to restore and protect their reputations. Freedom of speech should never mean freedom to abuse.

Armies of psychiatrists are no doubt still working away on an explanation as to why so many people feel strangely empowered to write things in e-mails or on online comment forums and bulletin boards which they would never dream of saying out loud or even writing in a letter to the Editor. Relative anonymity can provide a potent brew of Dutch courage for the timid, the cowardly, the vengeful or the frustrated.



Progress: Justice Secretary Ken Clarke wants to strip away the cloak of anonymity which shields website users who peddle lies, and end 'libel tourism'


Negative: The sharp popularity in social media has exposed a new medium for abuse and bullying

Yet haven’t we all experienced that “push send and be damned” moment? When the message, written more in anger than in sorrow, or perhaps even after one too many glasses of wine, flies merrily off into cyberspace and we give barely a second thought to its potential consequences. It almost makes you long for the days of pen and ink when the brisk walk to the post box might be enough to make you see sense.

But this particular genie escaped from the bottle many moons ago and our once sound and reliable libel and defamation laws are struggling to keep up with the proliferation of internet platforms offering and encouraging viewers to upload their own content and importuning the once silent audience to get online and participate.

Even the most august BBC programmes such as Question Time and Newsnight relentlessly push the Twitter hashtags which allow those watching at home to contribute to the debate with an instant opinion, as long as it doesn’t exceed 140 characters and includes #BBCQT or #BBCNewsnight.

It is this relentless hunger for the instant gratification of a response, combined with the now astonishing speed of the cyber jungle drums provided by social networks such as Facebook and Twitter which mean that one sole unchecked comment can, and frequently does, migrate to mainstream media almost immediately. Thus, within minutes, one catty comment or a cheap and casual libel can cause irreparable damage to the reputation, health and bank balance of the unfortunate subject.

When I am writing in this forum, I am lucky enough to receive comments. Any decent journalist welcomes this opportunity to find out what readers really think and most of my commenters do not mince their words. How excellent. It is a debate page, after all.

Yet the community guidelines are explicit and clear: we welcome your opinions but please do not go over the top. No posts which are defamatory, false or misleading; insulting, threatening or abusive; obscene or of a sexual nature; offensive, racist, sexist, homophobic or discriminatory against any religions.

Sadly, I don’t enjoy similar protection on Facebook or notably on Twitter where I have been subjected to an extraordinary amount of gratuitous, occasionally obscene and even threatening abuse.


Cautious welcome: Freedom of speech should never mean freedom to abuse


Yes, it can sting but as my mother used to say: Sticks and stones may break my bones but names will never hurt me. A civil approach and some measured interaction with the troll usually takes the wind out of their sails. The abuse usually says far far more about the trolls themselves than it does about me or anything I have written.

Being a victim myself has helped me to understand the behaviour of many of the trolls I have personally encountered. It does not however go any way towards excusing this behaviour. Exercise your internet-enabled instant right to reply by all means but if you have nothing constructive to say, then why bother to say it?

The vast majority of internet forums are friendly, helpful, fun, informative and supportive places where millions of people find answers to problems, engage in fascinating debate and rekindle or forge new friendships on a daily basis. If you don't want to play by these reasonable rules, then you run the risk of being cast out from the community whose forum you are exploiting.

Ken Clarke has insisted that the main aims of the Defamation Bill are to end libel tourism and to protect free speech. He has also promised safeguards to ensure that genuine whistle blowers who have legitimate causes for complaint are not inadvertently exposed.

Let us hope that these new measures succeed in bringing the internet libel regime up to date, allowing innocent victims to protect their reputations and sending a clear signal to the online bullies that they will be identified and held to account. However, we must also make sure any crackdown does not lead to unnecessary and draconian censorship of valuable online information.

The cowardly trolls cowering in their caves, composing their ugly and grotesque calumnies, have been allowed to get away scot free for far too long. It is high time they were forced to take responsibility for their actions.