UK Lawmakers Seeking Harsher Sentences For The Crime Of Being A Jerk Online
from the the-law-wasn't-BAD,-we-just-weren't-doing-it-HARD-enough! dept
The UK's Malicious Communications Act has served the country well in its aim to turn being a jerk into a criminal act. The Act debuted in 1988, in time to catch the internet in its developing period and criminalize behavior that was already covered by existing laws. (Except for the whole "on the internet" thing that makes lawmakers bust out their favorite markup pens.)
As it stands now, trolling (for lack of a better, shorter word) is punishable by up to 6 months in prison. For many of those on the receiving end of internet-delivered abuse, this apparently seems like it's too short to be effective. The Register notes that many of the act's proponents felt two particular individuals got off too lightly.
Perhaps the most notorious example was the one involving feminist campaigner Caroline Criado-Perez. Two people were later found guilty of sending menacing communications after Criado-Perez made a formal statement to police in July 2013 about being harassed online.One received 8 weeks in prison and the other 12 weeks, both of which clearly fit under the six-month maximum sentence, but seemingly offered no satisfaction to the victim of their online activities. So, British lawmakers have decided to "fix" this broken law, but not by disassembling it and allowing existing laws to do their jobs. Instead, they've decided to push for longer sentences in hopes of deterring future bad behavior and to prevent others from taking 8-12 week "vacations" at the local lockup.
But the accused ended up only with short stays behind bars.
Ms Bray’s plan would give magistrates the ability to send such cases for trial at crown court, where the jail term given could be four times longer and there is more time to bring a case. The change will be discussed by a committee of MPs on Thursday and if approved will be added to laws to be voted on later this year.This law isn't specifically a reaction to Criado-Perez's treatment, but rather an amalgamation of all those who have been wronged and, apparently, contacted their representatives about it. MP Angie Bray is being motivated by a constituent's statement that her daughter was "verbally raped" by an older man who sent thousands of obscene texts. Education Secretary Michael Gove spoke about several deaths attributed to cyberbullying in his support of the change.
The law's aim is, of course, noble: to stamp out abusive behavior online. Unfortunately, even the noblest laws have unintended consequences, like the punishment of the merely controversial, rather than true abuse. The law also seeks to exact proxy revenge for those who have been harmed, punishing people whose only crime was mere stupidity.
Lot of people say lots of things online, and not all of it is pleasant. Those championing these laws are seeking to guarantee their constituents the "right" to not be offended. But life's often an ugly place, populated by jerks. But being a jerk "on the internet" shouldn't be a criminal offense. The low bar of a communication possibly "causing distress" isn't high enough to prevent the law from being misused.
If the activities exceed simply being a jerk and move into something more dangerous, existing laws applying to stalking, harassment and making threats should be used rather than adding another layer of legislation over the top. The court of public opinion often weighs in heavily during outbursts of lousy online behavior, something that moves much faster than any court proceeding.
Addressing noxious behavior is fine, but applying a broadly-written law isn't. And expanding the length of imprisonment doesn't fix what's truly wrong with it -- it just makes the law worse.
Thank you for reading this Techdirt post. With so many things competing for everyone’s attention these days, we really appreciate you giving us your time. We work hard every day to put quality content out there for our community.
Techdirt is one of the few remaining truly independent media outlets. We do not have a giant corporation behind us, and we rely heavily on our community to support us, in an age when advertisers are increasingly uninterested in sponsoring small, independent sites — especially a site like ours that is unwilling to pull punches in its reporting and analysis.
While other websites have resorted to paywalls, registration requirements, and increasingly annoying/intrusive advertising, we have always kept Techdirt open and available to anyone. But in order to continue doing so, we need your support. We offer a variety of ways for our readers to support us, from direct donations to special subscriptions and cool merchandise — and every little bit helps. Thank you.
–The Techdirt Team
Filed Under: being a jerk, criminal, free speech, malicious communications, uk
Reader Comments
Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
How about...
They're being jerks and I'm only finding out about it online! They're breaking the law!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Don't show them Usenet circa 1984
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Don't show them Usenet circa 1984
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Don't show them Usenet circa 1984
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
What about my rights?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: What about my rights?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: What about my rights?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: What about my rights?
Go directly to jail.
You have just offended a beellion inferior primates (oh, I am truly sorry - I mean fine upstanding humans at the peak of evolution errm creation).
You can discuss it in jail with your cellmates, the inferior primates. Oh-oh, now I've done it.
I know, let's put everyone in jail and we can settle it there.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: What about my rights?
You find what people believe to be offensive? That's a little crimethinky, and ironically it puts you in the same camp as most religious people. It would be better to reserve your offense for what people do rather than what they think.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: What about my rights?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: What about my rights?
as i've called it numerous times in the past (and no doubt will in the future):
you have the RIGHT to NOT be assaulted;
you do NOT have the RIGHT to NOT be insulted...
the thing is, i KNOW as sure as dog made little green apples, that there are a MILLION times worse that goes on ALL THE TIME, only, it isn't 'recorded' as far as an email, or text message, or whatever that can become a black and white printout of what someone 'said'...
otherwise, THERE WOULD BE LITTLE TO NO 'case' when it was simply joe blow mouthing off at the bar and calling you names and there was no 'recording' of it...
the thing is, when i hear about shit like this, *I* want to insult the butt-hurt 'victim', AND the idiot politicians (oh, am i being redundant?) even more so...
stupid shits
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Mike Rogers
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Say the same thing on the internet = Jail
If you are easily offended, get off the internet
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
i can't stand the stupidheads who are trying to childproof the inertnet... not only CAN'T be (practically) done and maintain ANY semblance of free speech; BUT, I DON'T WANT IT DONE: this is an ADULT world (well, supposed to be), children have to GROW UP to live in it, the rest of us don't have to grown down to the lowest common denominator...
one point in relation to people calling/texting whatever harassing crap, while i have a stupid cellular telephonic transportable computing machine thingy, i really don't mess with them much, so a question to phonephreaks:
does the *69 block work on cellyphones ? ? ?
if so, WHY is someone/anyone receiving 'thousands' of calls/texts from someone they don't want to communicate with if they can simply *69 them ? ? ?
(yes, of course, the harasser can use other lines/numbers, but -really- how many even hard core jerks are going to go to the trouble to do that ? ...*thousands* of times ? )
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
A quick google search shows that blocking texts is somewhat difficult at the service provider level unless you want to cut off ALL text messaging from everyone. There are a few apps out there that do it apparently though. However, a simple solution would be to get a new phone number. I can change mine myself online through the service providers website, without any fees.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Said on Street - Arrested
http://www.bnp.org.uk/news/national/desperate-political-police-arrest-another-bnp-campaigner
G o to a sporting event - "Football" in the UK is a filth laden, cursing fest that rivals no other...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
re: No right to be offense free
Unfortunately, the rights of self expression within the US are being eroded, and started onto the same downward slide present in other parts of the world. We now have laws that add additional penalties for the use of certain expletives, or even claiming of same, in the commission of crimes. These are in essence thought crimes.
There should be no right to being protected against being offended, but unfortunately there are. And more and more are being formulated as the police states in various nations seek to expand their purview to controlling the entirety of behavior in life.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Time for turnabout?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
It is an uncivilized and unjust society that reacts with violence or incarceration those who speak contrary to their beliefs or sensibilities. When what constitutes a criminal act is determined by what people in power choose to be offended by then punishment will be arbitrary and capricious.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
How often is one you disagree with a troll?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Nothing up my sleeve....
Make a law that says one thing the public is ok with (for the children), and then slowly reinterpret that law's wording to include the things that the law was really designed to stop.
I'm pretty sure that by now, we could publish a book filled with such legislative slight of hand.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]