INTERNET TROLLS - A LAWYER'S POINT OF VIEW

'A Twitter printout is a witness which will never lie . . . the internet has a long memory'

Internet trolls who think they can get away with spouting abuse online should think again, according to a top Manchester media lawyer.

Steve Kuncewicz, head of intellectual property and media at law firm Bermans, says people who post vile comments online can fall foul of a number of laws - and courts are duty bound to take offences seriously.

He said victims who feel their reputation has been tarnished could also sue in the civil courts for defamation.

Mr Kuncewicz said: “You cannot stop people from voicing their opinions, but there is a very fine line between voicing an opinion and abuse, which is something that courts will take very seriously.”

Trolls could fall foul of the Protection from Harassment Act 1997, which prevents people from pursuing a course of conduct that amounts to harassment.

They could also be found to have breached the Communications Act 2003, which prevents the sending of a message that is ‘grossly offensive’, or of an ‘indecent, obscene or menacing character’.

It is also an offence under the Malicious Communications Act 1988 to send messages to another person which are ‘indecent or grossly offensive’, threatening or false.

Any indecent or grossly offensive message could be considered under this act as an offence if it causes distress or anxiety to the recipient, or ‘any other person to whom he intends that it or its contents or nature should be communicated’.

Anyone who is found guilty of malicious communication could face jail for up to six months or a fine.

Trolls could also fall foul of offences under terrorism legislation and of inciting racial harassment.

Just last month, a man was jailed for 18 weeks after he sent abusive Twitter messages to Labour MP Stella Creasy after she campaigned to put Jane Austen on the £10 note.

Mr Kuncewicz said: “When there have been a few high-profile cases, perhaps the public will start to take notice. That doesn’t seem to be happening at the moment.

“People need to realise that, in the eyes of a judge, there is very little difference between what you say online and what you say offline.

“The witness that will never lie is the printout of what an offender is saying to a victim on Twitter.

“They are creating their own chain of evidence for the prosecution. The internet has a long memory.”

Jean-Pierre.t50 wrote:A very good post LL  Thank you.  And just to add - it also provides a nice trail of co-conspirators to follow up if needed.  I am astonished by the attempts to justify Brenda's actions.

That said, I think she was a lonely woman who got a bit carried away, and enjoyed the approval and adulation of a group of "friends".  

bb1 wrote:That's all you can say, Sabot. The thought of Bennett and his ilk exploiting yet another family's tragedy for their own ends is beyond sickening. I don't know if it's possible, but I wouldn't blame the  Leyland family if they asked the police to bar the vulture/s from the coroner's court - haven't the haters and hounders done enough damage, caused enough grief, already?

lily wrote:He won't change though.  I will never ever forget that evening on the 3As when he hurled his venom and self-righteous stupidity at the partner of Lee Balkwell.  

It does appear as though he has an addiction and obsession with hurting the relatives of people who are in the most unfortunate of circumstances.  

I wonder what happened earlier in his life to make him so destructive?

bb1 wrote:It's shocking that he can't even leave this alone, Sabot, but just sees it as another family's tragedy to be exploited. His speed in tweeting Sweepy's son didn't escape notice.