This article is from the source 'guardian' and was first published or seen
on .
It last changed over 40 days ago and won't be checked again for changes.
Bill targeting internet 'trolls' gets wary welcome from websites
Bill targeting internet 'trolls' gets wary welcome from websites
(14 days later)
The era of online anonymity may be moving to a close if the government's proposals to unmask 'internet trolls' are passed by parliament, a leading website operator has warned.
The era of online anonymity may be moving to a close if the government's proposals to unmask 'internet trolls' are passed by parliament, a leading website operator has warned.
Justine Roberts, the co-founder of Mumsnet, has cautioned that measures in the defamation bill may financially benefit website operators but could undermine the culture of the web.
Justine Roberts, the co-founder of Mumsnet, has cautioned that measures in the defamation bill may financially benefit website operators but could undermine the culture of the web.
Internet service providers have welcomed legal changes that will protect them from libel action in return for disclosing the identity and contact details of people who post defamatory comments online.
Internet service providers have welcomed legal changes that will protect them from libel action in return for disclosing the identity and contact details of people who post defamatory comments online.
The changes are contained in clause five of the defamation bill, which was published several weeks ago. The issue has gained prominence in the wake of several cases of online harassment, involving insults on Facebook and threats against the Conservative MP Louise Mensch.
The changes are contained in clause five of the defamation bill, which was published several weeks ago. The issue has gained prominence in the wake of several cases of online harassment, involving insults on Facebook and threats against the Conservative MP Louise Mensch.
The bill says website operators will have a defence against libel claims as long as they co-operate with a formal notice of complaint served on them. Such notices may require operators to disclose the "identity or contact details" of whoever made an allegedly defamatory statement.
The bill says website operators will have a defence against libel claims as long as they co-operate with a formal notice of complaint served on them. Such notices may require operators to disclose the "identity or contact details" of whoever made an allegedly defamatory statement.
Precisely how the complaints procedure will work is due to be set out in regulations that the Ministry of Justice will publish in coming weeks. The bill's second reading takes place in the Commons on Tuesday afternoon.
Precisely how the complaints procedure will work is due to be set out in regulations that the Ministry of Justice will publish in coming weeks. The bill's second reading takes place in the Commons on Tuesday afternoon.
Roberts cautioned against blanket laws that might outlaw anonymity online. "No one wants to protect the identity of nasty internet trolls and there is much to be welcomed in the defamation bill around reducing complexity and recognising that many websites are not publishers in the traditional sense, but it's important that we don't completely devalue and disallow anonymity online," she said.
Roberts cautioned against blanket laws that might outlaw anonymity online. "No one wants to protect the identity of nasty internet trolls and there is much to be welcomed in the defamation bill around reducing complexity and recognising that many websites are not publishers in the traditional sense, but it's important that we don't completely devalue and disallow anonymity online," she said.
"The ability to both ask and advise anonymously is at the very core of the support Mumsnet provides. Take a scenario of someone dealing with an abusive relationship, they are often concerned about sharing their experiences for fear of being identified in real life and the potential repercussions for family and safety. It would not be in the public, or personal, interest if a woman being abused by her husband felt she could not seek help confidentially.
"The ability to both ask and advise anonymously is at the very core of the support Mumsnet provides. Take a scenario of someone dealing with an abusive relationship, they are often concerned about sharing their experiences for fear of being identified in real life and the potential repercussions for family and safety. It would not be in the public, or personal, interest if a woman being abused by her husband felt she could not seek help confidentially.
"There are cases where online users are very abusive or libellous and as the host of an online community I would have no qualms in passing on information about those posters' identity but there are powerful forces pushing towards a less anonymous web … In efforts to out the internet trolls the law must be careful to protect anonymous posts that let people access often life-saving support and advice."
"There are cases where online users are very abusive or libellous and as the host of an online community I would have no qualms in passing on information about those posters' identity but there are powerful forces pushing towards a less anonymous web … In efforts to out the internet trolls the law must be careful to protect anonymous posts that let people access often life-saving support and advice."
The changes might improve the business models of websites, she added, but "by moving away from an anonymous web you lose a lot of its potential".
The changes might improve the business models of websites, she added, but "by moving away from an anonymous web you lose a lot of its potential".
The Internet Service Providers Association (ISPA), which represents more than 200 online operators in the UK including Google, Virgin, BT and AOL, said it welcomed "publication of the defamation bill and the underlying recognition that ISPs are not best placed to decide if content is defamatory or not".
The Internet Service Providers Association (ISPA), which represents more than 200 online operators in the UK including Google, Virgin, BT and AOL, said it welcomed "publication of the defamation bill and the underlying recognition that ISPs are not best placed to decide if content is defamatory or not".
"The … ISPA will ensure that ISPs will only be required to identify customers with prior authorisation or through the agreed legal process."
"The … ISPA will ensure that ISPs will only be required to identify customers with prior authorisation or through the agreed legal process."
The free speech group Index on Censorship said it hoped the regulations would be voluntary. "The bill focuses liability on the individual person [who posts libellous remarks]," a spokesman said. "It is a move towards pulling liability away from internet service providers and social networks. It should not be represented as a mandatory or compulsory process.
The free speech group Index on Censorship said it hoped the regulations would be voluntary. "The bill focuses liability on the individual person [who posts libellous remarks]," a spokesman said. "It is a move towards pulling liability away from internet service providers and social networks. It should not be represented as a mandatory or compulsory process.
"The government's proposals on internet trolls are deeply concerning. There must be a court-based process to pull down content or remove anonymity. Anything that removes protections for whistleblowers will undermine free speech."
"The government's proposals on internet trolls are deeply concerning. There must be a court-based process to pull down content or remove anonymity. Anything that removes protections for whistleblowers will undermine free speech."
Explaining the purpose of the website clause in the defamation bill, the justice secretary, Kenneth Clarke, said: "As the law stands, individuals can be the subject of scurrilous rumour and allegation on the web with little meaningful remedy against the person responsible.
Explaining the purpose of the website clause in the defamation bill, the justice secretary, Kenneth Clarke, said: "As the law stands, individuals can be the subject of scurrilous rumour and allegation on the web with little meaningful remedy against the person responsible.
"Website operators are, in principle, liable as publishers for everything that appears on their sites, even though the content is often determined by users. But most operators are not in a position to know whether the material posted is defamatory or not and very often – faced with a complaint – they will immediately remove material.
"Website operators are, in principle, liable as publishers for everything that appears on their sites, even though the content is often determined by users. But most operators are not in a position to know whether the material posted is defamatory or not and very often – faced with a complaint – they will immediately remove material.
"Our proposed approach will mean that website operators have a defence against libel as long as they comply with a procedure to help identify the authors of allegedly defamatory material.
"Our proposed approach will mean that website operators have a defence against libel as long as they comply with a procedure to help identify the authors of allegedly defamatory material.
" … It will be very important to ensure that these measures do not inadvertently expose genuine whistleblowers, and we are committed to getting the detail right to minimise this risk."
" … It will be very important to ensure that these measures do not inadvertently expose genuine whistleblowers, and we are committed to getting the detail right to minimise this risk."
The case involving Mensch, who received threatening emails, has been linked to the bill but it was, in fact, a straightforward crime of someone sending offensive communications.
The case involving Mensch, who received threatening emails, has been linked to the bill but it was, in fact, a straightforward crime of someone sending offensive communications.
In a more closely related case last week, a Brighton woman, Nicola Brookes, obtained a landmark judgment against Facebook, forcing it to reveal the identities of those who had posted "vicious and depraved" abuse of her online.
In a more closely related case last week, a Brighton woman, Nicola Brookes, obtained a landmark judgment against Facebook, forcing it to reveal the identities of those who had posted "vicious and depraved" abuse of her online.
Brookes said she had spent six months working on the case after the police declined to take action and she failed to persuade the social website to take down the comments.
Brookes said she had spent six months working on the case after the police declined to take action and she failed to persuade the social website to take down the comments.
David Engel, head of the reputation protection and media litigation team at the City law firm Addleshaw Goddard, said the new measures represented a clarificiation of the law rather than a major change.
David Engel, head of the reputation protection and media litigation team at the City law firm Addleshaw Goddard, said the new measures represented a clarificiation of the law rather than a major change.
"Where a website operator refuses voluntarily to disclose the identity of a third party who has posted a defamatory statement on its website, it has always been possible to obtain an order from the court compelling it to identify the author of the posting," he said. "We have seen this in recent examples with Facebook. Contrary to the apparent belief of some, the internet has never been a law-free zone
"Where a website operator refuses voluntarily to disclose the identity of a third party who has posted a defamatory statement on its website, it has always been possible to obtain an order from the court compelling it to identify the author of the posting," he said. "We have seen this in recent examples with Facebook. Contrary to the apparent belief of some, the internet has never been a law-free zone
"What it will do is to limit the ability of people to hide behind anonymity to engage in unlawful conduct, such as the defamation of others. People may be less willing to libel others if their identity is known, or at least can be discovered, though whether this is likely in practice to raise the general tone of online debate is another matter."
"What it will do is to limit the ability of people to hide behind anonymity to engage in unlawful conduct, such as the defamation of others. People may be less willing to libel others if their identity is known, or at least can be discovered, though whether this is likely in practice to raise the general tone of online debate is another matter."
What's the difference though between an observation made on the back of a personal opinion and defamation?
Link to this comment:
12 June 2012 2:25PM
Does anyone know if, under the new bill it can legally be defned as "trolling" if I attack, say, the health of McDonalds food, the sugar industry, or the validity of dianetic psychotherapy?
Link to this comment:
12 June 2012 3:07PM
Also what happens if the website is not based in the UK? It just seems like more pressure on UK sites.
Link to this comment:
12 June 2012 3:42PM
In the name of the wee man!
Stalking and trolling are not the same thing.
Trolling can be annoying or it can, if done well, be absolutely hilarious but it is not stalking.
Some trolls are sad individuals who accept hate in lieu of anyone ever liking them, some trolls are simply out to casuse trouble for political, conspiracy theory or indeed commercial ends but they never actually stalk specific people. Someone who targets and hounds one specific person causing fear and consternation is a stalker plain and simple (and probably a perv to boot). We already have stalker laws surely?
Link to this comment:
12 June 2012 3:50PM
Anonymity is the very foundation of free speech. Take it away or limit it, and we limit our freedoms. Of course, the UK doesn't have free speech, in any event, so no big loss.
Link to this comment:
12 June 2012 3:59PM
Is the issue that the person who was stalking Louise Mensch actually looked like a troll (as in The three billy goats Grufff)?
Link to this comment:
12 June 2012 4:36PM
LOL
How apposite on a thread that in part explores censorship.
Link to this comment:
12 June 2012 4:36PM
How can you prove someone is using their real name anyway? Unless they have to sign up with their address and this is backed up by the electoral roll?
It's not the anonymity that causes much of the abuse. It's the lack of consequence. I wrote about this for the Guardian five years ago.
Plenty abuse comes from people using their real names. But until we find a way to punch someone through our screens for saying the kind of thing they'd never dream of saying to our faces, I can't see a solution.
Link to this comment:
12 June 2012 4:50PM
Funny link....cheers.
Link to this comment:
12 June 2012 4:53PM
I'm just extremely worried by anything recommended by mumsnet. Absolutely no idea why they have so much political/media clout.
Link to this comment:
12 June 2012 5:07PM
This bill isn't really about stopping personal abuse though is it? As this piece points out, Mensch's troll was charged under a completely different law.
Its actually about control and regulation of the Internet. What it is, what is its function and how to incorporate it into current controls and laws. There will also be a lobby group somewhere who are influencing this push to 'publisher" status as they seek to further monetise content.
With this proposal we might end up with something similar to the current legislation on Council tax. If you are the registered person at that address and your name is on the contract with the ISP, its your details that will be passed on.
Publicly accessed terminals in cafes etc, will probably have to take card payments only to comply with the new regulation.
And if you are in France or Spain, trolling on a UK site, what then?
Link to this comment:
12 June 2012 6:31PM
Mumsnet have so much political/media clout - at least here - because co-founder Justine Roberts is the other half of Ian Katz, deputy editor of this paper. So MrNotQuiteWright what is not quite right is that on the Defamation Bill the key reaction we have all been waiting for is from Mumsnet, not the first choice of most other news organisations looking for a response, I would have thought. But totally explicable when you consider the connections.
As someone who fits the Mumsnet profile (ie I'm a mum), I have found myself able to give it a wide berth following a couple of cyber trips there. Not a particularly nice site, as it happens, but funnily enough it gets a lot of coverage from the Guardian, which also hails Mumsnet's "influence".
Link to this comment:
12 June 2012 6:44PM
Sadly, I fear that if these laws were enacted the only people with the legal muscle to force a sustained action would be the likes of MacDonalds, Tesco, political groups, etc who would rather that dissent and protest was stifled. The stalking and harrassment and other bills have all been used in this way.
This is just another encroachment on the public space of the internet.
Link to this comment:
12 June 2012 7:23PM
I welcome these powers in relation to the vicious disgusting attacks especially on dead childrens families for example. The programme with Richard Bacon proved that "trolls" can be dangerous. Obviously not all of them are on the same level of nastyness.
I'll bet plenty of the cowards will be really scared now.
What goes around comes around!
Link to this comment:
12 June 2012 7:43PM
Ignore my last - I thought one my second post had gone but it seems to have reappeared. Must have been a gremlin in the works.
Link to this comment:
12 June 2012 9:15PM
Er, I don't want to punch anyone hongkong. I was simply pointing out that there isn't an instant remedy available to online abuse in the way that there is to the offline kind. Why are we mostly civil to people we meet in real life? Especially strangers? Because they are an unknown quantity and if you just call someone a tosser - or worse - there's a risk they might clout you or pour beer over you. Or humiliate you in some way.
That was my point. Sorry if you got impression I want to punch people but rest assured. That's one online development I don't think we'll ever see.
mind, you never know...
Link to this comment:
13 June 2012 6:14AM
Another law of which the People's Republic of China would be proud.
Link to this comment:
13 June 2012 6:29AM
When I started on the 'net back in about 1994, users were thin on the ground and new sites were announced in the press there used to be something called 'netiquette', I don't hear mention of it now. Iirc 'trolls' have their origin in Usenet newsgroups and have more to do with straight 'mind games', 'windups' and wasting bandwidth (precious at that time) than personal attacks. 'Griefers' would be more appropriate imho...
Link to this comment:
13 June 2012 6:39AM
Anyway, this bill isn't going to work, it will do more harm than good, the law is on the side of the wealthy. More blind interference by the government.
Link to this comment:
13 June 2012 7:08AM
Mr Facist Bastard will now be able to obtain the names and addresses of those who brought to light his unsavory activities.
Mr Facist Bastard will now be able to know where to send his boys round to silence his accusers.
Link to this comment:
13 June 2012 7:54AM
Another law introduced because enforcing existing ones is not done eg stalking, libel, intimidation etc
Link to this comment:
13 June 2012 10:26AM
This comment was removed by a moderator because it didn't abide by our community standards. Replies may also be deleted. For more detail see our FAQs.
13 June 2012 10:34AM
At the moment websites generally take down comments when they receive a complaint, as the law says if they do this they are protected against liability.
With this new law they will be protected against liability if they agree to pass on the poster's details, so I presume they will no longer need to remove the complained about posts as well. Is that really what is intended, that in future abusive comments will stay up for everyone to see?
Link to this comment:
13 June 2012 12:04PM
Or maybe the mods be trollin'.
Link to this comment:
13 June 2012 1:30PM
The Gruaniad definition of a Troll seems to be "someone whose opinion I disagree with". Fair enough, but the right to disagree is fundamental to free speech.
Will anyone posting against the party line (in whatever forum) now be considered fair game to have their details passed to those who may show ... ahem.... casual disregard for the law by their direct actions against those they disagree with ? Would an organisation divulging such private details become liable for the results of such direct action ? I forsee a staggering reduction in free speech beyond that already limited by law.
Will it also be considered trolling to e.g. call for the prosecution for war crimes of leading members of a recent British government ? In which case you may as well forget free political comment as well.
Link to this comment:
13 June 2012 1:33PM
@LucianOfSamosata
Mr Facist Bastard will now be able to obtain the names and addresses of those who brought to light his unsavory activities.
Mr Facist Bastard will now be able to know where to send his boys round to silence his accusers.
I'd be more worried about Mr. Commie Pervert who undoubtedly chooses to indulge in unsavoury activities and is arguably less likely to be law abiding.
Link to this comment:
14 June 2012 11:49AM
Ironic to see the Guardian reinterpreting defamatory allegations on websites as freedom of speech. I thought one could say what one liked providing it was true? Nothing wrong with that surely? There must be hundreds if not thousands of people who have been misrepresented or even lied about in the pages of the British press who have never had the benefit of a Troll Law to protect them and insufficient funds to sue for justice. An ability to convey their side of the story in a website is perhaps the only way they can obtain redress and inform a blinkered public. For example, I know of one shop-owner whom the Guardian inferred was part of a satanic conspiracy which drove a young man to suicide. That's murder isn't it? When the retailer wrote to the editor with incontrovertible facts including a letter in the deceased's own hand proving the accusation utterly wrong the Guardian's editor refused him a right of reply. That's censorship isn't it? See: http://www.saff.ukhq.co.uk/lewesrep.htm Perhaps the new Troll Law should also apply to printed media?
Link to this comment:
Comments on this page are now closed.
Turn autoplay off
Turn autoplay on
Please activate cookies in order to turn autoplay off
Edition: UK
About us
Today's paper
Subscribe
Internet service providers welcome protection from libel action in return for identifying abusers, but others fear loss of anonymity
The era of online anonymity may be moving to a close if the government's proposals to unmask 'internet trolls' are passed by parliament, a leading website operator has warned.
Justine Roberts, the co-founder of Mumsnet, has cautioned that measures in the defamation bill may financially benefit website operators but could undermine the culture of the web.
Internet service providers have welcomed legal changes that will protect them from libel action in return for disclosing the identity and contact details of people who post defamatory comments online.
The changes are contained in clause five of the defamation bill, which was published several weeks ago. The issue has gained prominence in the wake of several cases of online harassment, involving insults on Facebook and threats against the Conservative MP Louise Mensch.
The bill says website operators will have a defence against libel claims as long as they co-operate with a formal notice of complaint served on them. Such notices may require operators to disclose the "identity or contact details" of whoever made an allegedly defamatory statement.
Precisely how the complaints procedure will work is due to be set out in regulations that the Ministry of Justice will publish in coming weeks. The bill's second reading takes place in the Commons on Tuesday afternoon.
Roberts cautioned against blanket laws that might outlaw anonymity online. "No one wants to protect the identity of nasty internet trolls and there is much to be welcomed in the defamation bill around reducing complexity and recognising that many websites are not publishers in the traditional sense, but it's important that we don't completely devalue and disallow anonymity online," she said.
"The ability to both ask and advise anonymously is at the very core of the support Mumsnet provides. Take a scenario of someone dealing with an abusive relationship, they are often concerned about sharing their experiences for fear of being identified in real life and the potential repercussions for family and safety. It would not be in the public, or personal, interest if a woman being abused by her husband felt she could not seek help confidentially.
"There are cases where online users are very abusive or libellous and as the host of an online community I would have no qualms in passing on information about those posters' identity but there are powerful forces pushing towards a less anonymous web … In efforts to out the internet trolls the law must be careful to protect anonymous posts that let people access often life-saving support and advice."
The changes might improve the business models of websites, she added, but "by moving away from an anonymous web you lose a lot of its potential".
The Internet Service Providers Association (ISPA), which represents more than 200 online operators in the UK including Google, Virgin, BT and AOL, said it welcomed "publication of the defamation bill and the underlying recognition that ISPs are not best placed to decide if content is defamatory or not".
"The … ISPA will ensure that ISPs will only be required to identify customers with prior authorisation or through the agreed legal process."
The free speech group Index on Censorship said it hoped the regulations would be voluntary. "The bill focuses liability on the individual person [who posts libellous remarks]," a spokesman said. "It is a move towards pulling liability away from internet service providers and social networks. It should not be represented as a mandatory or compulsory process.
"The government's proposals on internet trolls are deeply concerning. There must be a court-based process to pull down content or remove anonymity. Anything that removes protections for whistleblowers will undermine free speech."
Explaining the purpose of the website clause in the defamation bill, the justice secretary, Kenneth Clarke, said: "As the law stands, individuals can be the subject of scurrilous rumour and allegation on the web with little meaningful remedy against the person responsible.
"Website operators are, in principle, liable as publishers for everything that appears on their sites, even though the content is often determined by users. But most operators are not in a position to know whether the material posted is defamatory or not and very often – faced with a complaint – they will immediately remove material.
"Our proposed approach will mean that website operators have a defence against libel as long as they comply with a procedure to help identify the authors of allegedly defamatory material.
" … It will be very important to ensure that these measures do not inadvertently expose genuine whistleblowers, and we are committed to getting the detail right to minimise this risk."
The case involving Mensch, who received threatening emails, has been linked to the bill but it was, in fact, a straightforward crime of someone sending offensive communications.
In a more closely related case last week, a Brighton woman, Nicola Brookes, obtained a landmark judgment against Facebook, forcing it to reveal the identities of those who had posted "vicious and depraved" abuse of her online.
Brookes said she had spent six months working on the case after the police declined to take action and she failed to persuade the social website to take down the comments.
David Engel, head of the reputation protection and media litigation team at the City law firm Addleshaw Goddard, said the new measures represented a clarificiation of the law rather than a major change.
"Where a website operator refuses voluntarily to disclose the identity of a third party who has posted a defamatory statement on its website, it has always been possible to obtain an order from the court compelling it to identify the author of the posting," he said. "We have seen this in recent examples with Facebook. Contrary to the apparent belief of some, the internet has never been a law-free zone
"What it will do is to limit the ability of people to hide behind anonymity to engage in unlawful conduct, such as the defamation of others. People may be less willing to libel others if their identity is known, or at least can be discovered, though whether this is likely in practice to raise the general tone of online debate is another matter."
