Internet 'trolls'...what are the government plans?

[Wombats]

Re: Internet 'trolls'...what are the government plans?

Also let's not forget that it's only defamation if it's untrue.

Yes, and that is where Mailicious Communications may come into play, depending, of course, on what is said and whether it is published with intent to cause anxiety or distress.

All in all, there is some good protection.

[Wombats]

Re: Internet 'trolls'...what are the government plans?

Scary reading.........

This is why the internet and social media sites are a double edged sword.

On a lighter note, I like to think of trolls as cute wee figures with funky hair. Oops, am I showing my age again?

Noooooooo........

[Kati]

Re: Internet 'trolls'...what are the government plans?

Also let's not forget that it's only defamation if it's untrue.

I agree ... if a poster can show where they got the information from, and it can be proven to be true, then they cannot in all honesty be accused of defamation :tinysmile_twink_t2:
(although some complainants might not see it that way)

Kati. Excellent question. The Ministry of Justice have introduced a Fact Sheet which is pretty detailed which should address your query

9. This should provide an explanation of the reasons why
the complainant thinks the statement is defamatory
of the complainant. The courts have used a range of
tests in deciding what is defamatory (for example,
whether the material “tends to lower the claimant in
the estimation of right-thinking members of society
generally”), but broadly speaking the complainant
should focus on explaining the harm that the
statement has caused or is likely to cause to his or
her reputation. Section 1 of the Defamation Act 2013
requires that for a statement to be defamatory the
level of harm caused or likely to be caused to the
reputation of the claimant must be serious, and in the
case of a body that trades for profit, the harm caused
or likely to be caused to that body must amount to
serious financial loss.

This section will be interesting to keep an eye on ... I wonder how many people can claim a statement/post on the internet has caused "serious harm" to their reputation or even "serious financial loss" to a business?

[Ruby]

Re: Internet 'trolls'...what are the government plans?

Ok, I get it - Thinking of the wrong sort lol

[Fair-Parking]

Re: Internet 'trolls'...what are the government plans?

That's better - smells much nicer now. Well spotted. Must be the well known deodorant.

[Milo]

Re: Internet 'trolls'...what are the government plans?

Kati. Excellent question. The Ministry of Justice have introduced a Fact Sheet which is pretty detailed which should address your query ( I have not as yet had time to read this...but will certainly be doing so later this evening !!!).

https://www.gov.uk/government/upload...n-guidance.pdf

In considering whether 'offending' posts are considered defamory under the Defamation (Owners of Websites) Regulations 2013 the Ministry of Justice cannot have made the position clearer than they have done under Item 9 (Page 2) entitled:

What the statement complained of says and why it is defamatory of the Complainant

"This should provide an explanation of the reasons why the complainant thinks the statement is defamatory of the complaint. The Courts have used a range of tests in deciding what is defamatory (for example; whether the material (posted):

'tends to lower the claimant in the estimation of right-thinking members of society generally' and broadly speaking the complainant should focus on explaining the harm that the statement has caused or is likely to cause to his or her reputation'

[EXC]

Re: Internet 'trolls'...what are the government plans?

'tends to lower the claimant in the estimation of right-thinking members of society generally'

What's often misunderstood is that there is no requirement to demonstrate that a statement actually lowered the view of the subject in the eyes of right thinking people, only that it is capable of doing so.

[Wombats]

Re: Internet 'trolls'...what are the government plans?

'Right minded' is also clearly defined somewhere (don't ask me where, but I have read it) as the normal 'Joe Bloggs' type of person. A bog standard member of the public.

Might have been something to do with the man on the Clapham omnibus thinking about it, I'm not sure.

EDIT: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_man...lapham_omnibus

[Wombats]

Re: Internet 'trolls'...what are the government plans?

What's often misunderstood is that there is no requirement to demonstrate that a statement actually lowered the view of the subject in the eyes of right thinking people, only that it is capable of doing so.

Is that the same with the financial aspect -ie - there is no requirement to demonstrate an actual loss but that it could cause a loss in the eyes of right thinking people?

[EXC]

Re: Internet 'trolls'...what are the government plans?

Is that the same with the financial aspect -ie - there is no requirement to demonstrate an actual loss but that it could cause a loss in the eyes of right thinking people?

I doubt it as loss would have to be quantified, so a different determination.

[Wombats]

Re: Internet 'trolls'...what are the government plans?

I doubt it as loss would have to be quantified, so a different determination.

I was thinking along the lines of it might not yet have caused a loss as certain groups of people may not have read the comment, but the potential for a quantifiable loss is definitely present.

[Kati]

Re: Internet 'trolls'...what are the government plans?

I know of a 'page' on Facebook that is shouting about these new "rules" and trying to make out that a few people are going to be taken to court for defamation ... although I cannot see how someone posting up a link to a recent judgement on Balli could be classed as defamation (especially when they have been accused of much worse over the past year) :tinysmile_aha_t:

[ploddertom]

Re: Internet 'trolls'...what are the government plans?

Have you ever tried getting FB to take any action particularly if you are blocked yourself from seeing the offending remark. They don't seem to give a flying fig what some say on there.

[Wombats]

Re: Internet 'trolls'...what are the government plans?

Really? How can posting a judgment be defamation? I suppose it could in a business environment where the link was used to say win a contract over a competitor, thus causing them financial loss, but is that defamation?

[Wombats]

Re: Internet 'trolls'...what are the government plans?

The problem here is the ease with which we can adopt other personalities and be anything or anyone we want online. With careful choice of a proxy which keeps no records, it must be possible to be almost untraceable. Thus I could become Ploddertom on Facebook and say lots of nasty things about Wombats and then try to claim defamation. Using real names, this could be an issue where one could pretend to be someone else and make remarks about a third party. I don't envy the 'internet police' their job.

I can also foresee a prolliferation of 'hidden areas' within forums so only a trusted few are allowed to see what is happening and can say what they like about anyone, no matter how defamatory or malicious. They may already exist on some sites.