UK law may target internet trolls

[Mef]

According to Reuters, a new UK law would provide a new way for people to seek legal recourse against internet forum posters, and would also provide protection for website hosts. Cracking down on online libel could be an onerous task.

[Joaz Banbeck]

As the referrenced article notes:

...the cost of taking action favours the wealthy.

http://seriouslyfreespeech.wordpress.co ... lly/slapp/

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Strategic_ ... ticipation

The law, in its majestic equality, forbids rich and poor alike to sleep under bridges, to beg in the streets, or to steal bread.

[admin]
This thread, at its very inception, is tip-toeing on the edge of the TOS. It is relevant, so I'm encouraging a healthy discussion. But, please, let's not let it go bad.
Thanks
JB
[/admin]

[Boidhre]

That's pretty much the (unofficial) state of play in Ireland at the moment. A solicitor's letter is sent to the website owners, the website owners either hand over the person's details or face legal action. It's not clear whether the offended party can sue both the site and the person who posted the remarks yet I think. It's a very complicated mess at the moment with the Government refusing to legislate on it properly.

[hyperpape]

Note that the concerns Joaz mentions pull in opposite directions: my making public disclosure easier, the new law would make it easier for not-especially-wealthy (NEW) folk to sue people who act in defamatory ways. On the other hand, by making it easier for NEW folk to sue, it would make it easier for SLAPPs to happen.

[jts]

Note that the concerns Joaz mentions pull in opposite directions: my making public disclosure easier, the new law would make it easier for not-especially-wealthy (NEW) folk to sue people who act in defamatory ways. On the other hand, by making it easier for NEW folk to sue, it would make it easier for SLAPPs to happen.

I'm confused. I consider myself not-especially-wealthy, and the legal system is basically out of my reach for the protection of my (civil) rights. Conversely, if I was sued for something I said online, I would have to throw myself at the mercy of the EFF or some other pro bono service. What's the bar you're setting up here for the NEW people who are protected by this law?

[Javaness2]

It sounds like a reasonable enough idea, although difficult to implement.
If you are intimidating, or harassing somebody over the internet, there has to be some protection for your victim. It seems to be mainly aimed at the 'threats of physical violence' rather than the 'name calling' stuff.

[hyperpape]

Well, perhaps the bar is higher than what applies to us. But I would still think there are some people who are now in a position to sue who were not before.

[speedchase]

to me this seems like a mockery of free speech and modern law. (Does UK have Constitutionally guaranteed free speech?)

[jts]

to me this seems like a mockery of free speech and modern law. (Does UK have Constitutionally guaranteed free speech?)

Not in the American sense. Supremacy of parliament and all that.

[RobertJasiek]

Does UK have Constitutionally guaranteed free speech?

The UK does not have a constitution.

[Javaness2]

Does UK have Constitutionally guaranteed free speech?

The UK does not have a constitution.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Constituti ... ed_Kingdom