Dpp1978
Posts: 1012
Joined: 2/4/2006
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: Hood_Man
"Troll" is becoming a blanket term isn't it? If someone calls this guy is a troll we still know what they mean by it, especially when he's done everything for attention.
My gut feeling is that we shouldn't police the internet to the extent that saying rude things becomes a punishable offence, but I guess when it comes to this example when someone says things of such ferocity (death threats etc), or things that would get them in a lot of trouble if said out in the open, then they should be punished in some way.
I don't see why that would lead to millions of convictions though, I'd assume that just like in the real world these things need to be witnessed and/or reported for action to be taken? *sends up DPP signal*
To be honest I think obsessing over what to call it is pointless. The only term which has any legal teeth is harassment, and where it occurs there is more than one Act which can bite.
Before I go any further there is something I feel should be addressed. Internet trolling is a colloquial term which, as far as I can gather, refers to any number of anti-social acts carried out, predominantly if not exclusively, on the internet. They may or may not amount to harassment depending on the degree to which they cause harm. It can be relatively harmless, such as posting nonsense to invoke a reaction; something akin to a small child acting up to get attention from the grown ups: or it can cause real hurt such as in the cases above which are, by any reasonable standard, so spiteful and ignorant that it is right that the criminal law has been brought to bear. It is a term so wide and relatively undefined that its use probably hinders the debate more than advances it.
Bullying is likely to amount to harassment of one kind or another.
Under the Public Order Act, causing "harassment, alarm or distress" by words or actions ,whether by intent or otherwise, in a public place is a criminal offence. From the Liam Stacey case we can surmise that for the purposes of this act any public or semi public: internet fora; blogging site; social networking site etc. is considered a public place.
There is a separate offence under the Protection from Harassment Act. It states that any person who undertakes a course of action which amounts to harassment of another, and the person undertaking it knows or ought to have known his actions would amount to harassment, commits an offence. A course of conduct merely means more than one instance of harassing behaviour directed towards the same subject.
This was primarily aimed at combating stalkers, but has been more widely applied. It applies whether the behaviour is conducted face to face or from a distance, so is certainly applicable to online harassment.
I don't have a problem with these cases being treated harshly if and when they are brought to the attention of the Police. The law has been slow in keeping pace with the social advances that the internet had brought.
People are using the internet to forge very real friendships without ever meeting. People are building meaningful communities based solely on internet communications. The sad fact of human nature is that wherever people congregate, physically or virtually (I apologise for the tired cliché), there is always at least one who wants to spoil it for everyone else. When this behaviour goes too far in the real world the law is there to provide relief.
Why should things be treated less seriously when they go wrong over the internet?
As long it is only cases where there has been real wrongdoing that are pursued: as opposed to silly jokes being prosecuted on spuriously constructed charges under only vaguely applicable laws (such as the Chambers case where common sense prevailed albeit belatedly), I see little reason for concern.
|
Printable Version
RE: Should Liam Stacey have gone to prison? - 
New Messages
No New Messages
Hot Topic w/ New Messages
Hot Topic w/o New Messages
Locked w/ New Messages
Locked w/o New Messages
Post New Thread