The CPS publishes social media hate crime prosecution guidance

[HEXUS]

Outlines trolling, doxxing, mobbing, and other online activities which should be prosecuted.

Read more.

[Corky34]

When i got to "while social media is designed to be a positive tool to educate, entertain and enlighten" i had to double check the date.

[BobF64]

And there was me thinking that "social media" was designed to take normal social environments and replicate them via the internet.

Which is where all the trouble started in the first place.

[shaithis]

I do find some of these cases totally OTT (to the point where people are ending up in court over a flippant remark (a remark that in person would never have gone any further).

But then I also saw early how social media mainly pandered to attention whores and therefore stayed away.

20 years from now we will all be saying "Remember when you could use the internet without fear of the police knocking on your door?"

[ik9000]

and so it begins, the mechanism by which state censorship of the interwebs can slowly creep along. In the name of "anti-trolling" the drip feed of what is "approved party line" viewpoints gets endorsed and anyone who speaks out against it now has the threat of this hackneyed piece of BS legislation being enforced against them.

I don't doubt the drafters mean well, but the implication will be anything but, and in the long term we have to hope people see sense and implement sufficient checks and balances, not to mention restraint, otherwise every cry-baby whinger who feels aggrieved will be wasting police time demanding action under this law because
a) he stuck his internet tongue out at me
b) he said he didn't believe in my make-believe "god" or his antiquated dress code/food laws/meditatory practices
or b) he said I should believe in his God and that my eternity depends on it (depending on your side of the fence)
c) he said all refugees should be put in forced labour camps / be given free housing (depending on your side of the fence)
d) he said the government don't know what they're doing, (a given whichever side of the fence)
e) oh and he wrote in a camp way that might have been a sarcastic dig at the butch short-haired girl from down the road, so I'm upset on her behalf too.

sheeeesh people. Do we really need this law on our books? With all the organised crime, bankers spivving our money and Blair/Goodwin/Green not facing any real prospect of legal action this seems like some rather daft BS to waste our parliament's time upon. How about spending time working out Brexit....

Ah - I get it. It's so when they stuff that up, surrender to the EU, and leave us all worse off than we ever were, we can't then bitch about it online and say how useless the whole job lot of them are. Now all the government needs to do is develop a system to spy on everyone's email, facebook et al so they can datamine and see who is dissenting. At least they don't have that capability yet... oh no, wait.

[excalibur1814]

Basically... don't be a dick.

I'm trying to learn photography and my girlfriend doesn't like having her picture taken... that leaves chairs, animals and myself. I had to stop taking test pictures, of myself, due to various people complaining that I was taking too many pictures of myself.

Eh?

[BobF64]

Basically... don't be a dick.

There will always be dicks somewhere, the only difference between the street and the internet is that you can clearly hear the insult on the internet.

And then fail to ignore it.

And then keep doing things that encourage the behaviour.

Best answer? remove both from the internet, there, problem solved.

[fend_oblivion]

"Social media is designed to be a positive tool to educate, entertain and enlighten, some users twist its purpose for bullying, intimidation, and harassment."

^ What is this rubbish, eh?

[Bagpuss]

If it were up to me, social media would be closed down, all of it.

It's done nothing but dumb down debate and political discourse in this country and given an outlet to self entitled narcissists who actually think their views are important and allows them to peddle an agenda of faux, professional outrage every time a decision is taken that they don't agree with.

[ik9000]

If it were up to me, social media would be closed down, all of it.

It's done nothing but dumb down debate and political discourse in this country and given an outlet to self entitled narcissists who actually think their views are important and allows them to peddle an agenda of faux, professional outrage every time a decision is taken that they don't agree with.

And worse, to do so while posting a picture of their cat!

[Dashers]

So all those who aren't allowed to troll people online anymore will just start reporting people to the police - and troll them in the real world instead.

Still waiting for the thought police.

[ik9000]

Still waiting for the thought police.

too late for them - Brexit vote's already happened.

[peterb]

I don't know why people get het up over this.

The internet is a communications medium, just like any other, and should be subject to the same controls, no more, no less. People who publish on the internet should be subject to the same controls as publishing in any other medium. The fact that the internet has opened up the means for publishing is far more accessible isn't a reason for saying anything goes.

Now there may be an argument for or against control in the wider context, but the internet isn't a special case and shouldn't be treated as such.

If you want to post any form of message, then go ahead, but be prepared to accept the possible consequences in law.

Would anyone seriously argue against laws controlling hate posting, social blackmail, homophobic content, racist contentment, incitement to violence and so on?

[ik9000]

that's exactly my point though - those laws already exist and are available to people. This additional piece of legislation goes beyond them and I gather has sufficiently ambiguously worded clauses that it could be used to censor free speech. You just need one bad court ruling by a mis-firing judge...

And the problem is that a lot of how this is worded comes down to "interpretation" and "perception". Perceived intent. Pfff - that's a grey area. As we all know, we all see things differently. In principle that list of things are obviously not welcome but if I've understood correctly the wording in this piece of law could well end up causing more problems than it solves.

[peterb]

Well, yes they are, although many of the remedies are only available in the civil courts, if you have deep pockets, and the pervasiveness of accessibility of and to the internet has introduced new forms of anti-social behaviour which criminal law needs to keep up to date with.

[Myss_tree]

The Independent reminds us that the survey in that report suggested that 24 per cent of teens were targeted and abused on the internet due to their gender, sexual orientation, race, religion, disability, or transgender identities.

Of the above one is the pure product of nuture ... religion, so it should be open to almost all critique, much like politics (which was not mentioned).
The best solution for the individual is rather than become a sheep and follow the flock, avoid places like Faecesbook and Twatter, have never been on either and my life in the real worl actually exists and i do not feel i am missing out on anything.
Best places online are message boards / forums for interaction which generally have a mixed level of moderation. Find the one that fits your sensitivity level.