Websites to be forced to identify trolls under new measures

[Steven_Draker]

Websites to be forced to identify trolls under new measures

 

http://news.bbcimg.co.uk/media/images/60839000/jpg/_60839864_50779378.jpg

 

Sites such as Facebook have been used to abuse people under the mask of anonymity

 

 

Websites will soon 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.

 

But privacy advocates are worried websites might end up divulging user details in a wider range of cases.

 

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, would 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.

 

The new rules would apply to all websites - regardless of where they are hosted - but the claimant would need to be able to show that the UK was the right place to bring the action.

 

End to 'scurrilous rumour'

Currently, in legal terms, every website "hit" - visit - on a defamatory article can be counted as a separate offence.

 

This means many websites remove articles as soon as a defamation claim is made - either rightly or wrongly.

 

"Website operators are in principle liable as publishers for everything that appears on their sites, even though the content is often determined by users," said Justice Secretary Ken Clarke.

 

"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.

 

 

Nicola Brookes said the abuse started after she posted a message about an X Factor star

"Our proposed approach will mean that website operators have a defence against libel as long as they identify the authors of allegedly defamatory material when requested to do so by a complainant."

 

Mr Clarke said the measures would mean an end to "scurrilous rumour and allegation" being posted online without fear of adequate punishment.

 

"The government wants a libel regime for the internet that makes it possible for people to protect their reputations effectively but also ensures that information online can't be easily censored by casual threats of litigation against website operators.

 

"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."

 

Privacy concerns

But Privacy International, an organisation that campaigns at an international level on privacy issues, says that there is a concern that "gun-shy website operators will start automatically divulging user details the moment someone alleges defamation in order to shield themselves from libel actions".

 

"A great deal of the content posted by internet trolls is not actually defamatory, instead constituting harassment, invasion of privacy or simply unpleasant but lawfully-expressed opinion," said Emma Draper, head of communications at Privacy International.

 

"However, if the choice is between protecting users' anonymity and avoiding a potentially costly lawsuit, many small operators are not going to be overly concerned about whether or not a user has genuinely defamed the complainant."

 

More to this story: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/technology-18404621

[JT Brooklyn]

Thanks Steven for the info..But as we both know everything looks good in writing enforcing it is a different story.

 

Happy Holidays My Old Friend! xo

[+ deej]

For the inobservant, this is a UK publication talking about a UK law.

 

The problem that legislators the world over encounter when trying to regulate the internet (apart from the fact they have no clue how it works) is that they don't have jurisdiction.

[Walker1]

It always starts with one justifiable case. What idjits.

[Steven_Draker]

Deej is technically spot-on. This is only a UK law, which opens a breach for we others to act like barbarians ... ;-)

[Guest]

The British are sensitive on the subject of defamation. I don't object to people being held accountable for spreading factually incorrect, defamatory information such as "Mr. X is a pedophile" or "Mr. Y is a drug dealer." That is quite different, though from rudely stating one's opinion, such as "Handle23 is a dumb-ass" or "User24 is an ugly SOB". While anyone making any four of these statements could be classified as a troll, I hardly think the law could or should step in for the latter two cases. There are definitely different categories of "trolls."

[+ deej]

There are definitely different categories of "trolls."

 

Therein lies part of the rub.

 

I miss Molly Ivins a lot when governments do stuff like this. She'd have a field day. She'd call it "dip-shit stuff" which pretty much describes it. At least we have proof it isn't uniquely American.

[MscleLovr]

The British are sensitive on the subject of defamation. I don't object to people being held accountable for spreading factually incorrect, defamatory information such as "Mr. X is a pedophile" or "Mr. Y is a drug dealer." That is quite different, though from rudely stating one's opinion, such as "Handle23 is a dumb-ass" or "User24 is an ugly SOB". While anyone making any four of these statements could be classified as a troll, I hardly think the law could or should step in for the latter two cases. There are definitely different categories of "trolls."

 

I'm not sure we're "sensitive". Current British law is fairly clear and for instance, in the case of the first example cited ("Mr X is a pedophile"), various organisations and individuals who have posted or repeated such scurrilous claims on twitter are being successfully sued and forced to pay compensation to the individual whose reputation has been harmed.

[Guest]

I'm not sure we're "sensitive". Current British law is fairly clear and for instance, in the case of the first example cited ("Mr X is a pedophile"), various organisations and individuals who have posted or repeated such scurrilous claims on twitter are being successfully sued and forced to pay compensation to the individual whose reputation has been harmed.

 

I was just referring to the fact that it's fairly common knowledge that it's easier to sue for defamation in the UK than in the US. The entry for defamation on wikipedia states:

The 1964 case New York Times Co. v. Sullivan, however, dramatically altered the nature of libel law in the United States by elevating the fault element for public officials to actual malice—that is, public figures could win a libel suit only if they could demonstrate the publisher's "knowledge that the information was false" or that the information was published "with reckless disregard of whether it was false or not". Later Supreme Court cases dismissed the claim for libel and forbade libel claims for statements that are so ridiculous to be clearly not true, or that involve opinionated subjects such as one's physical state of being. Recent cases have addressed defamation law and the internet.

Defamation law in the United States is much less plaintiff-friendly than its counterparts in European and the Commonwealth countries. In the United States, a comprehensive discussion of what is and is not libel or slander is difficult, because the definition differs between different states, and under federal law. Some states codify what constitutes slander and libel together into the same set of laws. Criminal libel is rare or nonexistent, depending on the state. Defenses to libel that can result in dismissal before trial include the statement being one of opinion rather than fact or being "fair comment and criticism".

 

Whereas is England and Wales:

English law allows actions for libel to be brought in the High Court for any published statements alleged to defame a named or identifiable individual or individuals in a manner that causes them loss in their trade or profession, or causes a reasonable person to think worse of them... A defamatory statement is presumed to be false unless the defendant can prove its truth.

[MscleLovr]

I entirely agree with you that it's harder to bring an action for defamation in the US than in the UK, and mainland Europe for that matter. Of course, you have to be able to afford the substantial lawyers' bills.

 

And on your last point - truth is a defence to a defamation claim - the UK courts deal harshly with a defendant who maintains the original defamation if it is found to be untrue. Conversely, a full apology and a swift retraction, coupled with a donation to charity often results in great leniency by the courts.

[Phil_musc]

I was just referring to the fact that it's fairly common knowledge that it's easier to sue for defamation in the UK than in the US. The entry for defamation on wikipedia states:

The 1964 case New York Times Co. v. Sullivan, however, dramatically altered the nature of libel law in the United States by elevating the fault element for public officials to actual malice—that is, public figures could win a libel suit only if they could demonstrate the publisher's "knowledge that the information was false" or that the information was published "with reckless disregard of whether it was false or not". Later Supreme Court cases dismissed the claim for libel and forbade libel claims for statements that are so ridiculous to be clearly not true, or that involve opinionated subjects such as one's physical state of being. Recent cases have addressed defamation law and the internet.

Defamation law in the United States is much less plaintiff-friendly than its counterparts in European and the Commonwealth countries. In the United States, a comprehensive discussion of what is and is not libel or slander is difficult, because the definition differs between different states, and under federal law. Some states codify what constitutes slander and libel together into the same set of laws. Criminal libel is rare or nonexistent, depending on the state. Defenses to libel that can result in dismissal before trial include the statement being one of opinion rather than fact or being "fair comment and criticism".

 

Whereas is England and Wales:

English law allows actions for libel to be brought in the High Court for any published statements alleged to defame a named or identifiable individual or individuals in a manner that causes them loss in their trade or profession, or causes a reasonable person to think worse of them... A defamatory statement is presumed to be false unless the defendant can prove its truth.

 

I think in the US it is much more difficult to prove libel if the plaintiff is a public figure. Public figures (and that requires it's own definition) have fewer rights in libel and slander cases in the US than do private citizens.