Websites to be forced to identify trolls under new measures - Polidicks

[URL]http://www.bbc.com/news/technology-18404621#sa-ns_mchannel=rss&ns_source=PublicRSS20-sa[/URL] [QUOTE][B]Websites will soon to be forced to identify people who have posted defamatory messages online.[/B] New government proposals say victims have a right to know who is behind malicious messages without the need for costly legal battles. The powers will be balanced by measures to prevent false claims in order to get material removed. Last week, a British woman won a court order forcing Facebook to identify users who had harassed her. Nicola Brookes had been falsely branded a paedophile and drug dealer by users - known as trolls - on Facebook. Facebook, which did not contest the order, will now reveal the IP addresses of people who had abused her so she can prosecute them. The new powers, to be added to the Defamation Bill, will make this process far less time-consuming and costly, the government said. Complying with requests would afford the website greater protection from being sued in the event of a defamation claim. [B] End to 'scurrilous rumour' [/B] Currently, in legal terms, every website "hit" - visit - on a defamatory article can be counted as a separate offence. This means many websites remove articles as soon as a defamation claim is made - either rightly or wrongly. "Website operators are in principle liable as publishers for everything that appears on their sites, even though the content is often determined by users," said Justice Secretary Ken Clarke. "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 identify the authors of allegedly defamatory material when requested to do so by a complainant." Mr Clarke said the measures would mean an end to "scurrilous rumour and allegation" being posted online without fear of adequate punishment. "The government wants a libel regime for the internet that makes it possible for people to protect their reputations effectively but also ensures that information online can't be easily censored by casual threats of litigation against website operators. "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." [/QUOTE] Fuck her, and her legal team. This is so aggravating in so many ways. For one, they have freedom of speech, in any form it may take. Also, using the IP that the posts came from is no way of actually knowing who posted that stuff. There is no way of pinpointing just one person based on IP. The most irritating and destructive thing that this case has done, however, is set the precedent. Now that people know they can get back at trolls through the courts, there will be more ridiculous lawsuits like this.

[quote]Currently, in legal terms, every website "hit" - visit - on a defamatory article can be counted as a separate offence.[/quote] People really need to learn that the internet is very different from the physical world.

[QUOTE]Currently, in legal terms, every website "hit" - visit - on a defamatory article can be counted as a separate offence.[/QUOTE] Wow, that's bullshit.

this woman sucks sheees stuuuuuupid omg i hate her lololol u just got trolled :~)

The Internet is the last remaining beacon of free speech, and I know a lot of sites would rather be shut down than give in to things like this.

Okay, there's a difference between branding someone as a pedo/drug dealer and saying lulzfag.

Ok before the endless barrage of people coming here to post how much of a dumb bitch she is happens, I'd like to point out that this is the same woman who people decided to make a fake profile for framing her of pedophilia and drug dealing. Freedom of speech does not protect blatant libel.

Snipped because I didn't understand what happened to this woman. I assumed, and assuming makes an ass out of u and me.

[QUOTE=valkery;36294650]I'll bet you sell pot, you fuckin' druggie. That hurt your feelings, so you go to court, get a sentence from the judge allowing you to now prosecute someone based solely on the fact that their IP was used when a that comment was made that wounded you so very deeply. Grow some thicker skin for fuck's sake. Calling you an assfag should have just as much impact on your self-esteem as a fly has when it hits a car windshield that is moving at 50mph.[/QUOTE] This is not what happened to the woman at all.

I wounder, do I have to follow this law if my hosting is in the UK? (Like anyone would use my site)

[QUOTE=valkery;36294650]I'll bet you sell pot, you fuckin' druggie. That hurt your feelings, so you go to court, get a sentence from the judge allowing you to now prosecute someone based solely on the fact that their IP was used when a that comment was made that wounded you so very deeply. Grow some thicker skin for fuck's sake. Calling you an assfag should have just as much impact on your self-esteem as a fly has when it hits a car windshield that is moving at 50mph.[/QUOTE] [quote]Ok before the endless barrage of people coming here to post how much of a dumb bitch she is happens, I'd like to point out that this is the same woman who people decided to make a fake profile for framing her of pedophilia and drug dealing. Freedom of speech does not protect blatant libel.[/quote] :colbert:

[QUOTE=valkery;36294353][URL]http://www.bbc.com/news/technology-18404621#sa-ns_mchannel=rss&ns_source=PublicRSS20-sa[/URL] Fuck her, and her legal team. This is so aggravating in so many ways. For one, [B]they have freedom of speech[/B], in any form it may take.[/QUOTE] I hate this argument with a passion. Yes, you do have freedom of speech - but it's freedom to a reasonable limit. Attacking someone verbally (or in this case, over the internet) is one of those limits. Freedoms =/= Rights

Anyways, if it's just basic name calling this law should not really have any effect on those people. However, if it's one like the related case of a fake profile making her look like a drug dealer and a pedophile, that, is more in line of what I find acceptable with punishment by law. Along with other incredibly blatant defaming, degrading and extremely hurtful things that could possibly make your life worse, for real. Things that could cost you your job. To the extent of what the article posted? No, I don't think it should be as slam crack down as it is now, but something more then a slap on the wrist would be fine.

[QUOTE=ZestyLemons;36294675]I hate this argument with a passion. Yes, you do have freedom of speech - but it's freedom to a reasonable limit. Attacking someone verbally (or in this case, over the internet) is one of those limits. Freedoms =/= Rights[/QUOTE] But there's so much potential for people to exploit this, and they certainly will. People throw around racial abuse and serious insults online like nothing, so people will pretend to be offended by that shit in order to get their way.

nah, i think this is hilarious and great the idea of some 16 year olds thinking they're hot shit and harassing people online then getting sued over it is more hysterical than the actual trolling if anything, it's slightly ironic not everyone out there can shrug off the type of junk that kids do to people online, you must realize that there are realistically many people that treat online social interaction with the same demeanor as physical interaction

[QUOTE=amcfaggot;36294734]nah, i think this is hilarious and great the idea of some 16 year olds thinking they're hot shit and harassing people online then getting sued over it is more hysterical than the actual trolling if anything, it's slightly ironic not everyone out there can shrug off the type of junk that kids do to people online, you must realize that there are realistically many people that treat online social interaction with the same demeanor as physical interaction[/QUOTE] But the Internet should be kept seperate from real life. What people choose to do online should have no impact on their real lives.

[QUOTE=KirinoKousaka;36294749]But the Internet should be kept seperate from real life. [B]What people choose to do online should have no impact on their real lives.[/B][/QUOTE] But unfortunately it does. The things that happen online like what happened to that woman could cost jobs and other positive opportunities, because who wants to hire or have anyone suspected of being a druggie and a pedo, or any other possible nasty thing, even if it's not true and you're just being framed or something? No one's guaranteed of believing you if you told them you're being framed. (Because I bet a lot of employers look up Facebooks to see what kind of person they're really hiring- which sometimes I don't think is right.) That's where the line is and that's how it would be crossed for real life intervening.

[QUOTE=amcfaggot;36294734]nah, i think this is hilarious and great the idea of some 16 year olds thinking they're hot shit and harassing people online then getting sued over it is more hysterical than the actual trolling if anything, it's slightly ironic not everyone out there can shrug off the type of junk that kids do to people online, you must realize that there are realistically many people that treat online social interaction with the same demeanor as physical interaction[/QUOTE] Just because I treat soda like it is water does not change the fact that it is soda. I'm sorry, but people who treat the internet the same way they treat real, physical interactions are dumb. The entire reason behind the internet is rapid data transfer. No one can possibly interact with as many people in real life as they do on the internet, and they should be aware of that. The internet should come with disclaimers, letting everyone who isn't already aware know that the internet is a place where you are probably going to be abused.

[QUOTE=valkery;36294805]The internet should come with disclaimers, letting everyone who isn't already aware know that the internet is a place where you are probably going to be abused.[/QUOTE] Mandatory competency tests given by ISPs as well.

[QUOTE=ZestyLemons;36294675]I hate this argument with a passion. Yes, you do have freedom of speech - but it's freedom to a reasonable limit. Attacking someone verbally (or in this case, over the internet) is one of those limits. Freedoms =/= Rights[/QUOTE] Actually, if we go by the first amendment, the freedom of speech gives you the right to say literally anything you want, at any time, with no law preventing you from doing so. What you're talking about is verbal assault and perhaps libel, which is a different can of worms entirely.

[QUOTE=KirinoKousaka;36294749]But the Internet should be kept seperate from real life. What people choose to do online should have no impact on their real lives.[/QUOTE] That's easy to say when you're not the one being framed for pedophilia and drug dealing. I can tell you right now that this sort of thing that these people did to that woman does in fact impact on their real lives. I guarantee you that in America someone would get in trouble with the police if they were framed online for being a drug dealer, and generally just being accused of being a pedophile is enough to make people look at you differently forever.

[QUOTE=SuperDuperScoot;36294788]But unfortunately it does. The things that happen online like what happened to that woman could cost jobs and other positive opportunities, because who wants to hire or have anyone suspected of being a druggie and a pedo, or any other possible nasty thing, even if it's not true and you're just being framed or something? No one's guaranteed of believing you if you told them you're being framed. (Because I bet a lot of employers look up Facebooks to see what kind of person they're really hiring- which sometimes I don't think is right.) That's where the line is and that's how it would be crossed for real life intervening.[/QUOTE] Employers looking up Facebooks is the biggest load of shit. Some people like to keep their personal lives seperate from their jobs; in fact I think everyone does. And in the same way, people like to keep their Internet lives and their real lives seperate, as it should be. I don't see a problem with that. It seems like people having troll accounts made of themselves could just deal with them online, without dragging it into real life. Basically, I think what happens online should ideally stay online.

Bubblewrap fucking everything fuck sakes. I'm starting to realise my granparents were right. People were tougher back then. They'd actually get hit with something and not give a fuck, and it seems people nowadays call each other names and are suddenly going to prison for life. What do they mean with costly legal battles? Don't tell me some idiot can sue me for calling him idiot...

[QUOTE=valkery;36294805]Just because I treat soda like it is water does not change the fact that it is soda. I'm sorry, but people who treat the internet the same way they treat real, physical interactions are dumb. The entire reason behind the internet is rapid data transfer. No one can possibly interact with as many people in real life as they do on the internet, and they should be aware of that. The internet should come with disclaimers, letting everyone who isn't already aware know that the internet is a place where you are probably going to be abused.[/QUOTE] using the internet doesn't make you immune from liability to the things you do, you're just massively less likely to receive punishment in the limited ways you can affect people in comparison to physical interaction

[QUOTE=dass;36294924]Bubblewrap fucking everything fuck sakes. I'm starting to realise my granparents were right. People were tougher back then. They'd actually get hit with something and not give a fuck, and it seems people nowadays call each other names and are suddenly going to prison for life. What do they mean with costly legal battles? Don't tell me some idiot can sue me for calling him idiot...[/QUOTE] Maybe you should actually read what happened to her before posting. Libel hasn't been legal since well before your time.

[QUOTE=KirinoKousaka;36294898]Employers looking up Facebooks is the biggest load of shit. Some people like to keep their personal lives seperate from their jobs; in fact I think everyone does. And in the same way, people like to keep their Internet lives and their real lives seperate, as it should be. I don't see a problem with that. It seems like people having troll accounts made of themselves could just deal with them online, without dragging it into real life. Basically, I think what happens online should ideally stay online.[/QUOTE] What happens online never really stays online no matter what you do. And yes, it is the biggest load of shit, but you can't tell them not to look, that's just begging for them to become suspicious and look. The most you could do is make your page private, but that doesn't prevent the employer from seeing the FAKE page, the one that could [I]really[/I] ruin your life. Said fake pages can also ruin friendships, relationships and sometimes break families apart. I've seen it happen to a friend.

[QUOTE=Ardosos;36294815]Mandatory competency tests given by ISPs as well.[/QUOTE] the internet is meant to be a public resource to be used by anyone

Also, I don't understand what you mean by, "Just because I treat soda like it is water does not change the fact that it is soda," considering that would support an argument like mine. Harassing people online can be like harassing people in real life. Just because you call it "trolling" instead of being an asshole and a jerk doesn't mean it's not being an asshole and a jerk.

[QUOTE=SuperDuperScoot;36294979]What happens online never really stays online no matter what you do. And yes, it is the biggest load of shit, but you can't tell them not to look, that's just begging for them to become suspicious and look. The most you could do is make your page private, but that doesn't prevent the employer from seeing the FAKE page, the one that could [I]really[/I] ruin your life. Said fake pages can also ruin friendships, relationships and sometimes break families apart. I've seen it happen to a friend.[/QUOTE] Well, people involved in Facebook libel should contact the owners or "moderators" (I don't know what Facebook has, I don't use it) to take charge of deleting the fake accounts. Whatever the case, there's no reason to drag it into real life. When that happens, everyone gets in an uproar about censorship and the evils of online communication. [editline]12th June 2012[/editline] [QUOTE=Ardosos;36294815]Mandatory competency tests given by ISPs as well.[/QUOTE] Except that's bloody stupid. The Internet is supposed to be an archive of information, so requiring a certain amount of knowledge to use it defeats its purpose a bit.

[QUOTE=JeanLuc761;36294863]Actually, if we go by the first amendment, the freedom of speech gives you the right to say literally anything you want, at any time, with no law preventing you from doing so. What you're talking about is verbal assault and perhaps libel, which is a different can of worms entirely.[/QUOTE] I'm not sure how it is in the USA, but in Canada we have limits, mentioned in my post. It's not really censorship, you can say all you want as long as it's not trying to be hateful towards a certain person, minority, majority, so on.