With the increasing availability of technology and online avenues by which common mortals can voice their opinions or vent their anger the world has experienced a massive increase in posts on comment boards, forums, blogs or social media sites.
Whilst locally, the majority of such interventions can be somehow linked to the constant political climate which our tiny island finds itself in, this phenomenon is much more far reaching than what a cursory analysis of local sites might provide. The rise of Web 2.0 has enabled everyone to share their view or opinions but in some situations such views or opinions would either have nothing to do (or be diametrically opposite) to what is being said or would be an attempt to harass or cause distress to others. Enter the troll, an individual who posts comments or messages online with the sole scope of provoking an emotional response or disrupting the discussion taking place. Trolls are around us and the unlimited posts and information being places online is feeding them.
The right to free speech and freedom of expression is sacrosanct but, like any other right, certain restrictions or obligations are attached to them. Rights are not absolute but they need to co-exist with other individual rights as well as the legitimate expectations that civil society has.
One has every right to post comments which are completely off-topic or give a complete different picture but such right should not give someone the ability to veil his real motives such as harassment or causing grief.
Recent history is rife with such situations, which, in a local context, might seem incredible. Take the case of Olivia Penpraze. The Australian from Melbourne had started a blogging site in 2010 as a way with which to deal with her depression as well as a way to receive messages of support. Trolls started targeting her blog and some even went as far as telling her to kill herself because she was ugly and better off dead. Earlier this year, she actually did. She was 19. Last year, 15 year old Natasha McBryde from the UK did the same thing. Sometimes trolls go a step further. There are many widely reported cases of trolls hijacking the memorial Facebook pages of deceased individuals just for the fun of it and unfortunately this behaviour is not abating.
In the UK, there have been serious attempts to introduce specific laws targeting trolls in order to curb harassment and intimidation being committed by some individuals through common tools such as Twitter and Facebook. The main argument behind this drive is that UK laws, as is the case with the vast majority of countries, predates social networks. Statistics in the UK show that the number of internet troll convicted in court for online bullying has increased by over 150% over the past four years. This discussion has also to keep in mind what is already provided under Section 127 of the UK Communications Act 2003 which establishes that it is an offence to send by means of a public electronic communications network a message or other matter that is grossly offensive or of an indecent, obscene or menacing character. Trolls could also be found liable in situations where, for the purpose of causing annoyance, inconvenience or anxiety they send messages containing statements which they know are not true.
Surely, one questions whether present local laws such as our Press Act as well as specific sections in our criminal code dealing with defamation go as far as the provisions contained in the UK Communications Act. It might be the case that the wording found in our laws is sufficiently wide to encapsulate such actions but it is also true that a proper legal analysis to confirm or otherwise whether our laws have properly evolved and kept up with the speeding pace of technology is not out of order. One also needs to assess whether it should be the criminal courts or the civil courts (or a mix of both) that should be responsible to try and decide cases relating to trolls. The British Police have clearly warned that the criminal justice system will be overwhelmed with cases involving trolls.
The UK parliament is presently discussing amendments to the Defamation Act which includes provisions by which internet providers will not be responsible for the publication of their content as long as they agree to divulge the identity of any of their users. In order that the injured parties would be granted such disclosure and thereafter pursue a civil case they need to prove that their reputation has been damaged considerably. This would not mean that if the offending comments posted are of a criminal nature they cannot be prosecuted under the Communications Act or any other law specifically relating to harassment or bullying.
Irrespective of the form of legislative changes or amendments which might potentially be required to address the trolling phenomenon, a very simple reasoning should prevail: what is illegal offline should be illegal online.
No comments:
Post a Comment