UK: Websites to be forced to identify trolls under new measures

[imcarthur]

"Websites will soon to be forced to identify people who have posted defamatory messages online.

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."

Full Article from the BBC here


It's Official: the 'good ole' renegades days of the Internet are over.

Ian

[EarlyPorsche]

Its sad that it had to get to that point. For most of us it won't matter because we don't get out there and do things we wouldn't do in real life...for those people who decide the internet is where they can harass people and be weird it will become a much harder lifestyle.

[Zeke]

Can't wait to see when it hits the 1st Amendment wall.

[McLovin]

Originally Posted by Zeke

Can't wait to see when it hits the 1st Amendment wall.

How is this a First Amendment issue?

[MRM]

Well, since the UK doesn't have a First Amendment, or even a Bill of Rights, it isn't a First Amendment issue. But in the US it is a public square issue. Facebook and its ilk have become the new public square, and will have to accommodate some freedom of speech. The courts will probably draw analogies to shopping centers, which are mostly private, but have some free speech duties, and privately hosted public festivals like state fairs, which have greater, but not unfettered First Amendment duties.

But slander, libel and obscenity are not protected by the First Amendment. So I see no reason under current US law why someone couldn't force any ISP or social networking site to reveal the identities of someone posting lies about someone that rose to the level of libel or slander. Not all lies do, but calling someone a pedophile, with our without the superfluous vowel, probably would be sufficient cause in the US to obtain the identity of the troll, unless the offended party is named Jerry Sandusky, in which case truth would be a valid defense to slander and the case would be thrown out of court.

[Zeke]

Originally Posted by McLovin

How is this a First Amendment issue?

Many U.S. Supreme Court rulings on "hate speech."

According to an article on the National Public Radio website, author Jeremy Waldon, a New York University law professor (NPR, 2012), says the United States is the only democracy to not have laws regulating “hate speech.” I’m not sure I knew that but the courts have affirmed and reaffirmed the rights held in the First Amendment for freedom of speech in almost every manner. So we must be unique in the sense.

However, there are some restrictions like promoting child pornography. Nicola Brookes has been apparently accused of that very same thing, so she might have prevailed in the U.S. as well.

One Man's Case For Regulating Hate Speech : NPR

[SmytheAlissa]

they can harass people and be weird it will become a much harder lifestyle.

[McLovin]

Still don't see the First Amendment issue.

Under that law, you are still free to say whatever you want. There is no restriction on free speech.

[GH85Carrera]

Sure there is. Slander is not protected. The old you can't yell fire in a crowded theater is not protected

[EarlyPorsche]

Originally Posted by Zeke

Can't wait to see when it hits the 1st Amendment wall.

No 1st amendment issue. Think of this law as a way of preventing "bullying" if you will.

[Zeke]

Originally Posted by EarlyPorsche

No 1st amendment issue. Think of this law as a way of preventing "bullying" if you will.

I may have misspoken, but I think there could be. I was thinking of the news reporter and not revealing their source type of thing although that is abstract to the core issue in the Brooks case.

[legion]

So, all you have to do is claim that someone said online is untrue, and you get to find out who said it?

I'd imagine most governments would have an interest in finding out who is saying bad things about them...

[EarlyPorsche]

Originally Posted by Zeke

I may have misspoken, but I think there could be. I was thinking of the news reporter and not revealing their source type of thing although that is abstract to the core issue in the Brooks case.

I gotcha. You could be right. If this were a US law and a 1st issue arose I would be curious to see arguments on both sides. Of course all of our discussion depends on whether a US version of this law ever shows up and how it is written. I would also be curious whether people would see this as a restriction on speech or more a privacy issue.

[Superman]

It looks like I may need to stop accusing you guys of pedophilia and drug trafficking.

The First Amendment does not guarantee everyone the right to say anything they want whenever they want. Perhaps PARF is a better forum for you, McLovin'. There, the First Amendment, as well as the rest of the Constitution and Bill of Rights, and any other laws or regulations for that matter, can mean anything you want.

[RWebb]

Originally Posted by McLovin

Still don't see the First Amendment issue.

Under that law, you are still free to say whatever you want. There is no restriction on free speech.

reread MRM's post