Internet 'trolls' face being named under new bill in Britain

Bai bai free speech! The pussification of america has spread to the UK...

Anonymous trolls will just have to try harder to be anonymous. Speaking of Anonymous, i wonder what's happened to Topiary since he was arrested a few months ago. The arrest shows that a proxy server is no better than a wet paper bag, however we still have the TOR network and besides, the kinder botmasters can always run TOR on their machines if they want to provide real anonymity for those who want it.

Good. I read yahoo UK news often, and some of the comments on there just fill me with disgust. No-one is safe, not even children who have tragically died in accidents. There are some very sad low lifes out there.

@OMG: The comments you describe probably are disgusting and nasty. But I don't think those type of comments are what this article refers to.

They should do that on JT. : )

will have a defense against libel as long as they identify the authors of allegedly defamatory material

Remove "libel" and this sounds like the DMCA. Either this is a very specific text or FB and friends will be able to point at an alleged troll and say "Fetch, Gov', fetch!".

Peer-moderation oughta be enough, even though that sometimes means downvoting a comment only because it expresses an unpopular opinion but is by no means defamatory - like what happens to most pro-nuclear comments on JT.

It's a necessary law. Too many Internet "tough guys", racists and other trolls out there and even on this site. Publish names and I bet many will think before posting. Long overdue on Yahoo News. That site is a complete disgrace.

Sticks and stones, grow a pair

@paulinUSA - what is it referring to then? Because if comments like "Your brat deserved to die, I know who you are and you and your family are all scum" (for example) are not trolling, then I dont know what is.

I am delighted the Uk is taking steps to protect our ability to communicate via the social websites,without the interferance of trolls and cyber bullying. At present these antisocial persons have been free to vent mischief and, or venemous libel and remain annonymous.

A dangerously BAD proposal. Anonymity IS free speech. The myth behind this is Govt trying to comeback "hate speech", when i reality they could not care less. It's more about identifying Govt critics as always.

`@christina

This aint to protect you from naughty people it is to control the people. they word these things in a clever fashion to make them look like the public good, like the way Blair did with his childish ID card plan that failed. Going down a slippery slope in the UK, glad i left it and don't intend to return.

Bai bai free speech! The pussification of america has spread to the UK...

It's called libel and slander laws.

JohnyGlitterBall, Naughty people, you refer to my post as if I am a child, omghontoni, sums up very well just one instance of what a troll is capable of.Free speech comes with responsibilities, we fought long and hard to attain it, its missuse by a few who who at the moment consider victimising people should indeed carry the propect that they will no longer be able to do so without their idetity becoming known.

Well said Christina. Im all for free spech, but not cowardly hiding behind annonymity to spread slander and cause emotional distress for nothing more than kicks. There is a world of difference between "I hate the government" and the example I posted above (a genuine comment from a news report of a child mauled to death by a dog). And at the moment news websites and social networking sites are doing very little about it and need to be made to take more responsibility.

@OMGhontoni

what is it referring to then? Because if comments like "Your brat deserved to die, I know who you are and you and your family are all scum" (for example) are not trolling, then I dont know what is.

Well it's more like spreading unfounded messages like "XX is a pedophile and a racist" which is defamation. Saying "Your brat deserved to die" is in bad taste but probably not illegal, but saying "I know who you are and I'm going to punch/kill you" would fall under threats which would be illegal.

@AiserX

A dangerously BAD proposal. Anonymity IS free speech.

Threats, harassment, libel, slander, etc are NOT protected under free speech. Just because you can do it anonymously doesn't mean that it's not illegal.

It starts against libel and slander, but will digress to squelching opposing views and leads to censorship, controlled speech, like those behind the Great Firewall.

This is a very difficult subject, but I can not wait to see the outcome.

It starts against libel and slander, but will digress to squelching opposing views and leads to censorship, controlled speech, like those behind the Great Firewall.

Yeah... nice slippery slope.

Are they trying to take all the fun out of the internet?

`Christina

You are behaving and talking to thsoe like me in the way those in power want. They enjoy seeing you point the finger at those of us who stand up for our freedoms. This is to protect celeb and politicians just like-the injunctions that were taken by celebs in the UK recently.

This is becomimng Orwellian thought speech type laws. In the Uk they already have some of the worlds strictests laws against libl. People should see what really is behind this instead of thumbing me down.

Trolls can be ignored and banned, the government can put you in prison. Get you priorities right and see what is really going on instead of what the regular media tells you.

Libel, slander, defamation - all are already illegal now in the real world. Did anybody have a problem with that? So why should it be a problem in the internet?

I am all for this bill. Please read the court case listed below that changed a definition of freedom of speech..

New York Times Co. v. Sullivan, 376 U.S. 254 (1964), ]t was a United States Supreme Court landmark case on freedom of speech.FYI

Defamation based on a lie should be a punishable offense, usatoday and all the major us news stations should pay fines for crap like toyota prius sudden acceleration propaganda. everyone knows it was a ploy, and the person who started it should be jailed.

Also you may want to read another article listed below. This is a recent famous court case in US, not Britain. A gay high school kid was exposed on internet social blog site by his school mate and exposed naked that he was gay. He eventually took his own life.. Isn't this very cruel and mean? It should be banned totally IMHO.

Tyler Clementi's Suicide and Dharun Ravi's Trial : The New Yorker

@globalwatcher

You have been taken in, hook line and sinker.

You say what they want us all to say. OMG! A poor gay kid did this etc... No evidence that this guy did not have previous problems.

They use examples like this and will say things like 'what if it was one of your loved ons?' It does not end there, in the Uk there are satisfactory laws to safeguard against these things. This is to enforce conformity and compliance, nothing more nothing less.

Why is the internet any different to gossiping? You going to ban that as well?

It is not worth sacrificing anonymity to chase some stupid trolls. No way. Not a chance.

We are already not free on the net. We have plenty of censorship. The difference between us and China is that they do it hard and fast by the government, and we train people from birth to say the right answers and leave it to the popular web sites to censor anyone out of line. We get more criticism of government, but so what? When was the last time you heard of a government toppled because of the internet?

Sure, you can make a website right now, and print all kinds of non-mainstream opinions. But who is going to read it? Go to a place with actual traffic and the censorship can be oppressive. The few sites with more freedom are over-run with idiots though.

A gay high school kid was exposed on internet social blog site by his school mate

And heavy handed laws like this were not necessary to find out who did it.

And the problem was not that he was defamed. You cannot defame someone with the truth, legally speaking. The problem is that his privacy was invaded. This law and similar ones would not have done a thing for Tyler. What we need are stronger privacy laws and more severe punishments for violations across the board. There is absolutely no good reason to single out the internet.

New York Times Co. v. Sullivan

Thank you. I did not know about that. But I find it to be like a declaration of martial law that has long outlasted its necessity. It should be repealed. But now that I know of that case, I know why the media is so blatantly irresponsible these days.

JohhnyGlitterballJun. 13, 2012 - 02:51PM JST

@globalwatcher

You have been taken in, hook line and sinker.

@Johhny, would you please read New York Times vs Sullivan case? Obviously you have not. Based on the definition, please tell me if you still hold the same view. Thank you.

Agree with JohnnyGlitterball and edwardstark. This kind of law is there to test the water by appearing to be aimed at undesirables, but can also be used to remove true posts on the unsavoury antics of powerful people and prosecute the posters.

Just soppose for a moment that I,or any member of my family or friends on the internet media, became a target for a demented internet troll,would it make sense to know the name of the offender? These people remain a mask behind their current freedom of assumed identity. Fortunately, my friends online post warnings as to the name used by trolls who request a friendship invitation,that they have had adverse experiences with. If I or any of my fellow posters were to be libeled or stalked, should we not be enabled in that case to take a judicial redress against that offender. If a newspaper was to print untrue facts causing injury to a persons character, it is simple enough to sue. Why should the same standards not be adhered to with the social media.? Sadly there are the trolls who are not the friend of anyone on facebook or twitter, they exist only to abuse the use of free speech

@Christina;

There are stalking and harassment laws already in place for what you are saying. The laws they want to pass are much more intrusive. Also use more common sense with social netwrking sites and only add people you know, you wouldn't let a stranger into your home would you, use the same policy online. globalwatcher, i am aware of that case and Britain hs far stricter laws already in place than the US.

Peopel open your eyes and see these laws for what they are!

No worries about who I accept as friends, but thankyou for that advice.Still, it is only my own oppinion that I believe the same rules that are applied towards magazine and newspaper periodicals should also apply to my right to the name of any person who defames my character using the internet to do so. Libel is a published edition of untrue facts These untrue facts are not always posted to the intended recipicant, often they are sent to other web users.Of course I would not like truthfull oppinions to be cencored, though we dont always agree to other peoples comments, it is interesting reading other posters points of view. Thumb you down for what you believe in? never., so Johnyglitterball what we cannot agree on, let us beg to differ

This is one bridge too far again. I think anonymity should be maintained just ban or block that person's IP address from ever posting on that site again. The type of thinking that is being promoted in this article will end up being abused by those with the most power to "shut up" those that they don't want to hear criticism from. Not a good idea at all.

Bai bai free speech! The pussification of america has spread to the UK...

Another example of having been spoiled by the internet's relative anonymity and now that the courts are catching up, trying to make it a "free speech" issue. It's not. You're still free to spout off anything you want to, you just can't hide behind a pseudonym and expect the publisher you used to keep you hidden.

It's OK to post something that's controversial, even anonymously. Just don't post something that would amount to libel, slander, or defamation - no one has the right to do that.

@lostrune2 do you know how many late night tv show hosts and comedians would be out of a job with that kind of statement? If it rubs someone the wrong way and they choose to put it under slander, libel, etc then a lot of humour would be dead. All someone has to do is press charges claiming injury.

Pressing charges doesn't mean the courts will side with you. If ya slander it'll cost ya. If ya press wrongful charges, it'll cost ya too. It's a balance of power thing - each side has to balance the other's power. The courts decide where the line is currently drawn and shouldn't be crossed.