Welcome Guest Search | Active Topics | Members | Log In | Register

Websites Will Be Forced To Identify Trolls Options · View
MoonlightSerenity
Posted: Tuesday, June 12, 2012 7:59:10 AM

Rank: Forum Guru

Joined: 1/7/2012
Posts: 854
Location: United Kingdom
http://uk.news.yahoo.com/websites-forced-identify-trolls-033754759.html

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.

What do you think of this? A load of tosh or something that will be very useful? Or just another way for the govt. to take control of our lives?

Teased and Tormented -My very first story and competition entry is now up!
Buz
Posted: Tuesday, June 12, 2012 8:05:08 AM

Rank: The Linebacker

Joined: 3/2/2011
Posts: 5,703
Location: Atlanta, United States
Adolph Hitler would greatly approve. It's Nazi dictatorship tactics! It is just another way for the government to subvert freedom, stamp out any opposition and force citizens to submit to their complete control.

latinfoxy
Posted: Tuesday, June 12, 2012 8:18:14 AM

Rank: Forum Guru

Joined: 4/5/2011
Posts: 816
Location: Here
I think this law has too many holes in it, i mean how do you judge if its really defamatory and really afecting the other persons life? what if i just say i think Buz is a horrible biker and have awfull abs, does that count as defamatory?

How do you messure what i think is cyberbullie and what the next person those? i mean if you read some of the threads here more than one person have cry wolf more than once when it actually wasnt bullying and i have seen more than one bullie here, but do they really deserve to be prosecuted?
lafayettemister
Posted: Tuesday, June 12, 2012 8:23:28 AM

Rank: Forum Guru

Joined: 10/4/2010
Posts: 6,372
Location: Alabama, United States
Who gets to decide when a person is a troll? What's the criteria? This will jsut turn things around to allow the bullied to be come the bullies. Pathetic.

Just today I read on yahoo today about a town in Massachusetts (I think) that wil now fine people $20 for using profanity in public. So much for freedom of speech.





When the debate is lost, slander becomes the tool of the loser. Socrates
AngelHeart01
Posted: Tuesday, June 12, 2012 8:29:13 AM

Rank: Forum Guru

Joined: 4/23/2010
Posts: 3,139
Location: ♥ Southern Style ♥, United States
Holy Shit ($20 fine), I reckon people better start deleting some of their Blogs on their profiles.



latinfoxy
Posted: Tuesday, June 12, 2012 8:36:26 AM

Rank: Forum Guru

Joined: 4/5/2011
Posts: 816
Location: Here
AngelHeart01 wrote:
Holy Shit ($20 fine), I reckon people better start deleting some of their Blogs on their profiles.





The 20$ are for saying profanities in public in Massachusetts. On the bullie one you can get sued for whatever the ammount the other person thinks you owe them.
Frank
Posted: Tuesday, June 12, 2012 8:38:56 AM

Rank: Forum Guru

Joined: 11/16/2011
Posts: 9,262
Location: Pleasure dome, United Kingdom
I think you're lovely latinfoxy!

________________________________________________________________

Experience is not what happens to you; it's what you do with what happens to you.
Aldous Huxley

MoonlightSerenity
Posted: Tuesday, June 12, 2012 8:40:20 AM

Rank: Forum Guru

Joined: 1/7/2012
Posts: 854
Location: United Kingdom
lafayettemister wrote:
Just today I read on yahoo today about a town in Massachusetts (I think) that wil now fine people $20 for using profanity in public. So much for freedom of speech.


Shit that's bad.... I hope that rule gets taken off them fast...

Teased and Tormented -My very first story and competition entry is now up!
Dudealicious
Posted: Tuesday, June 12, 2012 8:48:00 AM

Rank: Wise Ass

Joined: 11/12/2010
Posts: 5,411
Location: The center of the universe, Canada
Wait are we talking about these kind of trolls?



In all seriousness I don't think it's such a bad idea. If you have been around here to observe the posts of the likes of Stormblue, bigguns, RicoG and others, they should be identified as "shit disturbers". We are now living in a day and age where we rarely communicate face to face, however we can post something on a social network and hide behind our computer screens.

I guess it would have to be put up for a vote if their name gets passed on to the government by the people responsible for the website, knowing it's a pretty harsh accusation. In my opinion it's the government watching the cyberbullies that exist, no more than that.

The night that changed my life, a four part series of a married man lusting after his co-worker

1curiouscat
Posted: Tuesday, June 12, 2012 8:49:20 AM

Rank: Forum Guru

Joined: 4/25/2011
Posts: 1,144
Location: São Paulo , Brazil
lafayettemister wrote:
Who gets to decide when a person is a troll? What's the criteria? This will jsut turn things around to allow the bullied to be come the bullies. Pathetic.

Just today I read on yahoo today about a town in Massachusetts (I think) that wil now fine people $20 for using profanity in public. So much for freedom of speech.
]

Is there a logical reason for such a law?? WTF that is exactly like the scene you posted a little ago from demolition man...

How are they going to enforce this?



Overwhelming Reality

From Across the Room
1curiouscat
Posted: Tuesday, June 12, 2012 8:52:21 AM

Rank: Forum Guru

Joined: 4/25/2011
Posts: 1,144
Location: São Paulo , Brazil
Dudealicious wrote:


I guess it would have to be put up for a vote if their name gets passed on to the government by the people responsible for the website, knowing it's a pretty harsh accusation.


I think its too vague in how you can identify them - it could eventually become a witch hunt.



Overwhelming Reality

From Across the Room
Dudealicious
Posted: Tuesday, June 12, 2012 8:57:16 AM

Rank: Wise Ass

Joined: 11/12/2010
Posts: 5,411
Location: The center of the universe, Canada
1curiouscat wrote:


I think its too vague in how you can identify them - it could eventually become a witch hunt.


Well there have been a handful of members here who could have qualified for this. They made themselves clearly visible so there was no need for a "witch hunt" whatsoever. If you have to hunt for them, they really wouldn't ben considered a troll in my opinion.

The night that changed my life, a four part series of a married man lusting after his co-worker

lafayettemister
Posted: Tuesday, June 12, 2012 9:02:11 AM

Rank: Forum Guru

Joined: 10/4/2010
Posts: 6,372
Location: Alabama, United States
1curiouscat wrote:


I think its too vague in how you can identify them - it could eventually become a witch hunt.


That's a good point. How can authorities be sure that the person listed on any profile is the actual person that may have input something offensive. There would be no way to positively ID the person who posted offending comments.





When the debate is lost, slander becomes the tool of the loser. Socrates
1curiouscat
Posted: Tuesday, June 12, 2012 9:04:20 AM

Rank: Forum Guru

Joined: 4/25/2011
Posts: 1,144
Location: São Paulo , Brazil
lafayettemister wrote:


That's a good point. How can authorities be sure that the person listed on any profile is the actual person that may have input something offensive. There would be no way to positively ID the person who posted offending comments.


Thats exactly what I meant... I mean Rocco or BigGuns could have been anyone, including a "good" member of the site hoping to creating some excitement... there is no way to prove against it.



Overwhelming Reality

From Across the Room
MoonlightSerenity
Posted: Tuesday, June 12, 2012 9:07:10 AM

Rank: Forum Guru

Joined: 1/7/2012
Posts: 854
Location: United Kingdom
1curiouscat wrote:


Thats exactly what I meant... I mean Rocco or BigGuns could have been anyone, including a "good" member of the site hoping to creating some excitement... there is no way to prove against it.


And it may not even be the person who that account belongs to who posted the comments.

Teased and Tormented -My very first story and competition entry is now up!
lafayettemister
Posted: Tuesday, June 12, 2012 9:15:02 AM

Rank: Forum Guru

Joined: 10/4/2010
Posts: 6,372
Location: Alabama, United States
I'd be more worried about who gets to decide what is and isn't trollery. If it's some uber-PC, easily offended, living in mom's basement, anti-social computer geek then we'll all be guilty sooner or later.





When the debate is lost, slander becomes the tool of the loser. Socrates
AngelHeart01
Posted: Tuesday, June 12, 2012 9:18:13 AM

Rank: Forum Guru

Joined: 4/23/2010
Posts: 3,139
Location: ♥ Southern Style ♥, United States
latinfoxy wrote:


The 20$ are for saying profanities in public in Massachusetts. On the bullie one you can get sued for whatever the ammount the other person thinks you owe them.


Yeah, I know .... It was a joke. icon_smile And so is the FINE.
TransitionalMan
Posted: Tuesday, June 12, 2012 9:30:45 AM

Rank: Forum Guru

Joined: 12/27/2009
Posts: 108
Location: Ohio, United States
If fined, you can contest it in a court. Usually it's cheaper to pay the fine, but as a matter of course a court challenge makes both sides present evidence to defend their case.

Human beings never see the same language exactly the same way. It is not defensible to argue that then net would not be better off anonymous abusers, who often say truly vile and inflammatory things they'd never dare to say in person. On the other hand, defining what constitutes such abuse. If it's confined only to the most egregious cases probably no one will have a problem, but one man's egregious is another's "I wish they hadn't".

And this is the problem. People routinely call city councilmen, and even their congressman's office over barking dogs, their neighbor's ham set, all sorts of juvenile things. Politicians know that people remember the time you said 'no' to them far more sharply then the time they did something well liked. People who have thin skins in one area, tend to have it for another and so to say "that really isn't bad enough" is difficult for them unless it can be done by some faceless bureaucrat, who then gets the blame. Your city councilmen has to seem concerned-- not matter what he or she actually thinks-- lest the complainer decide to take it personally during the next election. A lot of what they do is try to mollify people. So until the courts offer actual guidance as to what is and is not acceptable matters will be interesting. At $20 a pop for a fine, versus mega lawyer bills, my guess is most people will pay until and unless some big organization with money gets in on their behalf.
sprite
Posted: Tuesday, June 12, 2012 9:33:26 AM

Rank: Her Royal Spriteness

Joined: 6/18/2010
Posts: 14,416
Location: My Tower, United States
MoonlightSerenity wrote:
http://uk.news.yahoo.com/websites-forced-identify-trolls-033754759.html

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.

What do you think of this? A load of tosh or something that will be very useful? Or just another way for the govt. to take control of our lives?


who decides what is trolling? that's what worries me - i mean, yes, sometimes it's obvious, but sometimes, one person's comic is another person's Troll and intent is often difficult to discern in posts. this law worries me - let websites take care of the trolls themselves by simply banning them.

http://www.lushstories.com/stories/hardcore/west-coast-games-part-one-the-beach.aspx
redlips
Posted: Tuesday, June 12, 2012 9:42:58 AM

Rank: Forum Guru

Joined: 5/21/2011
Posts: 144
My stance would be that it is not the governments place to do this at all. We have too much governmental involvement in private things now. We are losing our freedoms because the government says it is protecting us. I don't like it.

I agree with her spriteness, let the websites regulate themselves. If they don't and you feel pestered and abused, find a site that does patrol itself and suits you better.

If you ignore beauty, you will soon find yourself without it.................Frank Lloyd Wright

I always practice obedience, when it's in my best interest.
Dudealicious
Posted: Tuesday, June 12, 2012 9:49:42 AM

Rank: Wise Ass

Joined: 11/12/2010
Posts: 5,411
Location: The center of the universe, Canada
lafayettemister wrote:
I'd be more worried about who gets to decide what is and isn't trollery. If it's some uber-PC, easily offended, living in mom's basement, anti-social computer geek then we'll all be guilty sooner or later.


Someone like this you mean?



The night that changed my life, a four part series of a married man lusting after his co-worker

MoonlightSerenity
Posted: Tuesday, June 12, 2012 10:29:28 AM

Rank: Forum Guru

Joined: 1/7/2012
Posts: 854
Location: United Kingdom
redlips wrote:
My stance would be that it is not the governments place to do this at all. We have too much governmental involvement in private things now. We are losing our freedoms because the government says it is protecting us. I don't like it.

I agree with her spriteness, let the websites regulate themselves. If they don't and you feel pestered and abused, find a site that does patrol itself and suits you better.


But we all know that the parents are the ones who'll push this law as far as it can go sadly, and we know their not that smart to go to somewhere else.

And like you I also agree with sprite, sadly many a person is too damn stupid.

Teased and Tormented -My very first story and competition entry is now up!
ArtMan
Posted: Tuesday, June 12, 2012 11:18:05 AM

Rank: Forum Guru

Joined: 6/29/2011
Posts: 640
Location: South Florida, United States
Typical power grab by all-powerful leftist leaning government entities furthering their effort to deny your right of free speech.

You are invited to read Passionate Danger, Part II, a story collaboration by Kim and ArtMan.
http://www.lushstories.com/stories/straight-sex/passionate-danger-part-ii.aspx

Ruthie
Posted: Tuesday, June 12, 2012 1:55:17 PM

Rank: Story Verifier

Joined: 10/21/2010
Posts: 2,304
Location: United States
Governments are always looking for inventive new ways to suppress dissent. Our liberties are being chipped away a bit at a time. It may already be too late to stop it, but we need to keep trying.
Kitanica
Posted: Tuesday, June 12, 2012 2:28:59 PM

Rank: Forum Guru

Joined: 4/16/2011
Posts: 881
Location: The Sprawl, United States
so if this happens do I get a "U MAD" badge? That would be awesome. Trolololol
freakycactus
Posted: Tuesday, June 12, 2012 2:49:04 PM

Rank: Forum Guru

Joined: 5/12/2010
Posts: 409
Location: On my cloud, United Kingdom
Recently in the UK a football (soccer) player was found guilty of rape, during the trial and after his guilty verdict there were a lot of people on Twitter naming the victim. Over here there is meant to be anonymity for life for rape victims, they can waive this right if they choose to but she didn't. Yes, it's already illegal for them to name her, and we're told that appropriate action is being taken, but since this happened there seems to have been more of a push towards having people take responsibility for what they say and do online.

Twitter naming of victim

Rembacher
Posted: Tuesday, June 12, 2012 4:15:11 PM

Rank: Forum Guru

Joined: 10/16/2008
Posts: 1,106
I'm scratching my head at this one, and some of the responses. From what I understand, this leaves everything in the hands of the websites themselves to make the determination of whether someone has a legitimate reason to sue an offender. Now yes, we all trust these websites with our private information already, but I really don't want someone outside the legal system making the decision of whether my identity can be revealed. It needs to be more of an official process.

We've had a few high profile suicides from cyber bullying in Canada over the past couple of years, so there has been a push to create new laws or at the very least redefine the laws we have. http://www.cba.org/bc/public_media/criminal/206.aspx According to the British Columbia Bar Association cyber bullying already does fall under Canadian law.

Quote:

What is cyberbullying?
Cyberbullying is a type of harassment using new technology. Whether it is criminal harassment depends on the facts of a case. Cyberbullies use social media (such as Facebook, Twitter, and YouTube), blogs, texting, instant messaging, and other internet avenues to engage in deliberate, repeated, and hostile behaviour intended to harm, embarrass, or slander someone. Although their work is public, cyberbullies are anonymous and it is often harder to identify and stop them.

Cyberbullying may also be defamation. The Criminal Code (section 300) outlaws publishing a "defamatory libel" – material published, without lawful justification or excuse, likely to injure the reputation of any person by exposing them to hatred, contempt or ridicule, or designed to insult the person. But criminal defamation is rare. More common is civil defamation – communication about a person that tends to hurt their reputation. Script 240, called “Defamation: Libel and Slander”, has more on this.


It has been difficult in the past to decide who had jurisdiction and how much fault can be laid on actions that don't happen in a physical space. But online has become a reality, and unfortunately part of that reality is that we need to police it. I'm all for laws that punish someone for doing something online that they would have been punished for doing in real life.
LadyX
Posted: Tuesday, June 12, 2012 4:45:40 PM

Rank: Artistic Tart

Joined: 9/25/2009
Posts: 4,827
What a bad idea, all the way around.

If somebody threatens another's life or health, then yes, investigate and go after he/she who threatens (which they already do).

If somebody makes noise about wreaking havoc in society, either through terrorism, vandalism, or through another means, then go after them (which they already do).

Those things are unlawful no matter where they're broadcast, and are prosecuted accordingly. No new laws are needed for that.

But new laws, to "protect" society from people who act like dicks on the internet? Oh, for fuck's sake.

The real issue on the internet is anonymity. Anybody can say anything without repercussion; that's why so much asshattery occurs online. And that's why more and more sites are requiring registration in order to chime in with comments. People should be held reasonably accountable for what they say, even if it's only in the context of an online pseudonym.

But you don't fix that issue by passing a bunch of laws that are ripe for government abuse at some point down the line, and you don't, as a society, further feed this stupid idea that we can somehow reach a "100% safe, clean, and polite" zone, common sense be damned. Anonymity clogs up websites, ruins peoples' fun sometimes....but abuse of anonymity, on it's face, shouldn't be illegal.

If these clowns weren't serious about this, it would be funny.
Ryario_Darkstar
Posted: Tuesday, June 12, 2012 5:06:50 PM

Rank: Advanced Wordsmith

Joined: 5/8/2009
Posts: 84
Location: The Throne of the Under World
Pfft like the average person cant idenitfy a web troll.
Guest
Posted: Tuesday, June 12, 2012 6:41:28 PM

Rank: Lurker

Joined: 12/1/2006
Posts: 531,818
Dudealicious wrote:


Someone like this you mean?



I couldn't agree more with you and Buz! But I have no idea how to "double" quote so I will quote yours a reference Buz's... Government needs to stay out of my business and everyone elses!
Users browsing this topic
Guest 


Forum Jump
You cannot post new topics in this forum.
You cannot reply to topics in this forum.
You cannot delete your posts in this forum.
You cannot edit your posts in this forum.
You cannot create polls in this forum.
You cannot vote in polls in this forum.

Main Forum RSS : RSS

Powered by Yet Another Forum.net version 1.9.1.6 (NET v4.0) - 11/14/2007
Copyright © 2003-2006 Yet Another Forum.net. All rights reserved.