The internet used to be fun, at the start it was just solid trolling from everyone and it was easily understood that none of it matters, it's text on a screen.... now that people have lived their whole lives with the internet they take it waaaay to seriously.
I kind of agree, however there is a line I'm a bit older so was never really affected by it but cyber bullying is a real problem particular for teenage girls. My view on it is if an individual is continuously targeted with online abuse (threats and so on) then that's well within the realms of harassment
Years ago it was older people and message boards. So you generally had an idea of who were in a particular group or the moderators would step in. People would tolerant differing view points or at least had social skills to debate their point. Most people had a life outside of the internet. With social media it’s like the Wild West. People can hide behind multiple fake profiles and created pile ons if they have a difference of opinion with someone or it doesn’t fit their narrative. These trolls have no life except their on line persona and nobody to tell them they are extreme or even breaking the law by their behaviours.
I think it's more to do with how many kids/young adults live their life online these days while 15/20 years ago many ppl that would troll now and again would be in a jokingly way, while these days it has become really harsh and its like living in a rough council estate in the 70s/80s/90s where all the rough ppl chase away normal folk and the area just gets worse and worse
I’m a free speech absolutist the only exception being a call to or threat of violence. Someone can voice their option or view I can post mine. It should be as simple as that.
So you'd be happy to make it legal to abuse disabled people or minorities and call them the most disgusting things so long as they don't advocate violence? Really?
The problem with criminalising trolling is that ultimately it attacks freedom of speech. Trolls are idiots, just ignore them.But it should never be a police matter. I know a lot of people will disagree with that, but I wish we had a first amendment like USA.Otherwise the authorities will keep nibbling away at our freedoms by stealth.
Watching some audit channels and some of them are a joke but some offer useful information. USA it seems to be a citizens right to be able to swear at the police when stopped, freedom of speech...
It does depend how far it goes when people are getting death and rape threats it’s to far or the cases where they have goaded someone into suicide. Obviously obscene photos should be against the law
Absolutely. Unfortunately, unlike the US, freedom of speech is not a right in the UK. Freedom of speech is only tolerated and can be rescinded at any time. People hearing that internet trolls can go to prison are obviously happy, but they don't realise that this rule is entirely based on opinion, so it can easily be turned against anyone. It is just one more tool the authorities have that they can use to silence and persecute people they don't like.
It's no different from what we are allowed to say face-to-face. We don't have full freedom of speech and neither should we in my opinion. You can't incite hatred or violence against someone. Things you say can infringe on other people's safety and wellbeing. It's all a balancing act.
Problem we now have so many sensitive souls that will complain about hurty feelings with the slightest bit of criticism. Calling out an idiot,because he's an idiot,isn't "trolling"it's a matter of opinion that in a healthy society should be open to debate,and not threats of running to YT to get the "offender" deplatformed.
@@margaretnicol3423 "Won't you think of the children" is the first go to excuse for those who actually want to crush opposing opinions and information.
I really don't think that trolling is about calling someone an idiot. I mean, if someone is regularly calling someone an idiot online then I would suggest their levels of civility and decorum are low, but it's not trolling. Trolling would be deliberate intimidation, threats, bullying, using maybe racism etc.
@@TheDiggidee How is calling someone who has demonstrated they're an idiot,an idiot,trolling? Do we all now just agree with everything,no matter how stupid,because that appears to be what you're suggesting. Sorry if this response gives you hurty feelings,but that's just tough.
27 years online, IT professional. "Trolling" can be benign. I'm sure we have all trolled a friend. The scenario is usually your friend is ranting about something or is annoyed by something and so you lead them along with responses designed to get them more and more wound up. At some point it is very obvious you are trolling, some banterous insults are exchanged and everyone remains friends. The media and it's hype however have, as always repurposed the word through over and incorrect use to refer to basically "online bullies". I would counter they are two disctinct things. While an online bully will conduct in trolling, the intent is usually very different. I'm pretty sure you have been in enough court sittings to know that "Trolling" and "Bullying" are not only common, but standard practice. Forcing a witness (not a defendant) to tears is standard and allowed. I have seen this several times, it was delibrate, it was designed, premeditated full on character attack and assassination in front of a room with 30 people in it. No comments made. I walked out and slammed the court door behind me and went for a smoke before I ended up in contempt voicing my opinion. Trolling and "being a troll" are miss used. Mild trolling can be VERY common in exasperating a debate for example. That brings me to the word "intent". This law (as you mentioned) still requires "intent" be proven? However a lot of other laws these days have shifted the definition of "offended" as to whatever the receiver believes it to be. So in those cases, it matters not that you intended to offend, but only that the complaining party 'was' offended, or at least 'claims' to have been offended. This is legal lunacy. It's basically righting a blank charge cheque to everyone who wishes to take offense to something, no matter how contrived.
Worse still, such laws are wide open to abuse by malicious individuals who contrive to be offended by an innocently intended remark, knowing full well the repercussions for the individual on the receiving end of the police investigation. Such laws belong better in authoritarian police states than in a country such as the U.K. and play a not inconsiderable role in eroding the right to freedom of expression in this country.
I wouldn't describe trading insults among friends as trolling -- and I would dispute your claim that the word includes that at all. I agree that much courtroom cross examination is distasteful or worse -- but again I am not sure that it would be called trolling. It is not "digressive" for example to quote just one of the adjectives quoted from Wikipedia. Or at least if it is then the judge should stop it forthwith.
You are certainly mistaken about intent as well, at least under English law, and this barrister and this channel is only about English law. There is no right in England to be deliberately offensive simply for self entertainment, as there may well be in some other jurisdictions. This channel is not about what the law should be but about what it actually is. Go to a political channel if you think the law needs changing. Intent comes into many other offences and intent here is no different. A jury or a magistrate is often asked to decide whether an accused intended to leave a shop without paying or was it genuine forgetfulness, what an accused intent was in carrying a screwdriver (was it because as a tool as he's a mechanic or to use as a weapon against rival fans at a sporting event?), was it an honest mistake when the defendant added an extra set to their annual income on a credit application; or as here whether the intent was to cause offence. These are classic jury decisions. A jury as part of the general public is deemed more likely to be an accurate judge of intent than a learned judge who spends their whole life in an ivory tower. Only in theory can you argue that we never know someone else's intent. In practice we usually can tell whether an excuse is plausible or not. If the excuse given raises a reasonable level of doubt then the jury or magistrate will acquit. If the doubt is only at the minuscule level of philosophical theory then they will convict, and rightly so otherwise much of the law would be rendered ineffective. So it is not about whether the supposed victim is upset, but about the intention a neutral person would reasonably infer from the behaviour that led to the charge. And you can be guilty of the offence if you intended to offend, even if your target is not actually offended. It is the defendants intent that matters, not whether the supposed victim is or is not a "snowflake" If you are offended here by being told you are wrong, that wasn't my intention.
I just wish these "Barristers" would either stay in the court room or actually learn a thing or two about the real world and stop following stupid media terms like "Trolling" when it's being vastly over and miss used. I see trolling a hundred times a day. On FB, YT etc. Admins dont do anything because, classical trolling is not that "offensive." As soon as someone crosses a line, it stops being trolling and starts being "a dick" or "offensive" and gets kicked/banned/reported. It's like dozens of other, particular IT in origin, terms which get miss used and they are starting to be pick up in law which is always a distaster.
@@trueriver1950 Two points: 1. Daniel often calls for discussions on parts of law, so I don't see why a healthy discussion about the merits of any particular legislation should be excluded. He even said in a pervious video words to the effect that the law needs to be looked at and discussed as part of the process of removing absurdities. 2. The comedian known as "Count Dankula" was handed a £800 fine for one joke even though the court agreed that the supposedly aggrieved parties _were not_ the target of his joke. Intent *did not matter,* it was the effect on others which apparently counted.
it's not "trolling" it's called FREE SPEECH, if you are "upset" by reading word's on a computer screen, you've escaped from your padded cell and straight jacket,
as prof peterson states if people have something hateful to say they must be allowed to say it so it will be reasoned and ultimatly rejected. we must have this balance in a civil society.
@@HelloHello33333 I deal with them all the time, they are there for the attention which means they suffer from attaention deficit. these are low resoution people trying to promote a simple idelogy. as soon as you introduce a few facts and ask for the same they go away.
There's having a Gaff, and then there's having a Gaff. Some are just plain nasty for their own gratification, and don't come over as funny to anyone else.
@@TheTreherne Congratulations you figured it out. Why? Power and control = wealth. How? Because we are in the grasp of a 5th generation war that is using propaganda to tell us how we all should think and behave and using that to punish certain thoughts. Orwell documents pretty well how this works.
I agree, until a certain point, me pissing around messaging random people is not bad, me repeatedly messaging the same person upsetting them to a high extent is
Then might I suggest that internet trolls create their own channels? Presumably, abuse would consist of the rest of us commenting on the channel in the most reasonable and gentle of tones in order to provoke an emotional response on the part of the troll ....
He who controls the information a person can receive can manipulate their perceptions and therefore control their behaviour. What do you think the media do? Their owners (worlds richest people) want to do the manipulation. They paid for this law.
Playing the devil's advocate to stimulate debate is a constant in parliament so are they all trolls too . You are the peoples barrister BBB and it's clear to see you enjoy yourself in that role by creating content for the public , not sure why anyone would try and cancel you for providing a public service,
Not only that, but quite a few of the official communications issued by government in the past two years easily fall under the definition of "trolling".
@@CristiNeaguThose in authority are conditioned to pull the wool over the eyes of the public they are brainwashed and programmed to lie . Now all eyes are on them and the public are pulling those fake masks off and using legislation to flush them from the system
@@markdunkling1604 History has shown that this rarely happens without it being directed by the a new generation of scumbags just waiting to take control.
@@CristiNeagu History shows nothing except what the powers that be want you to see . Tyrants can not survive in a system where they are forced to be transparent and accountable for their actions .
@@CristiNeagu Or just blatant crimes, deceptions and lies in order to stimulate personal wealth and power. But thats all lawful because they say it is.
Thanks for this info. Given what you said, why shouldn't a solicitor's letter, perhaps threatening court action or some other adverse consequence, not be in breach of the provision? Its primary aim is to elicit anxiety and distress in the receiver such that he/she complies with some desired outcome..
Many years ago, I had an account on Twitter. I was randomly scrolling through some stuff, when I noticed someone posting a long winded whine about how the local council were useless, they hadn't properly signposted a location the person was trying to get to, and they "had no choice but to drive the wrong way down a one way street" once they realised they were lost. As expected, the majority of replies were of the "how terrible the experience must have been, hope you've not been too stressed, sue the buggers" type.🤔 I pointed out that it maybe wasn't the most intelligent thing to do, posting an admission of committing a traffic offence on an open public forum. (I may have used the word "moronic" at some point). Over the next few hours, I received a flurry of replies of absolute abuse that I'd had the temerity to not fawn over the original poster. When I pointed out that being a snowflake doesn't excuse stupidity, I was reported and banned. 🤷♂️. Never thought I'd see a world where hurt feelings trump objective reality.
Sounds like the people that run it are the same ones that moderate a forum I use. I used to post a lot and helped many people in many areas. Someone wanted to commit fraud and I was polite and said "no you cannot do that its fraud". Thats it.. Following post had expletives and calling them all sorts of names.. Login to find a warning and my post removed yet the abusive one still intact.. Contacted the forum team and must have got the person that actually made the mistake... They were obviously embarassed at their mistake but would not back down stating that I could report the other post.. That started me off... I need to report an abusive post that you know about yet accidently deleted mine instead??? I was like a dog with his favourite bone now... They just would not admit they made a mistake, instead they threated to kick me off the forum for wasting their time. Banned me again recently because I told someone to install some software without the registration code, it acts as a 30 day trial. Seems thats illegal??? So the developer designed it to run in trial mode for 30 days for what reason? Idiots.... :) Internet used to be a nice place where you needed a bit of knowledge to get online, it was a nicer place back then.
It's all about narratives these days, not facts. The idea is that there is no one truth, and everyone has their individual truth, and what is true for me may not be true for you. As such, the only thing that matters is viewpoint.
@@CristiNeagu Right out of the Boris Johnson / Donald Trump 1984 playbook. “It appeared that there had even been demonstrations to thank Big Brother for raising the chocolate ration to twenty grammes a week. And only yesterday, he reflected, it had been announced that the ration was to be REDUCED to twenty grammes a week.
They paint the world full of shadows... and then tell their children to stay close to the light. Their light. Their reasons, their judgments. Because in the darkness, there be dragons. But it isn't true. -Capt Flint, Black Sails
It's always the same subjects that people get upset over, just accept not everybody has the same opinion. Trolls just exploit this, sometimes with humour.
It’s not really about trolling though it’s more government censorship. Eg I could have been found guilty of trolling the government when I was banging on about Vaccine legislation but technically I was correct as government legislation breached the Equality Act. In the future you will go to jail for standing up for your rights but apart from BBB raising the issue have you heard this on the mainstream media?
Exactly , I mean look at all the people out there who are still offended through religion ! Quite frankly it's offensive in 2022people still believe in fairies and trolls 😂
While I dont agree with jail time for trolling it is still bullying. Being an arsehole just to get reaction from person is rather pathetic and they ought to focus on being a better person.
Hi Black Belt - Keep doing what you do - you deserve to get sponsorship - you deserve to receive revenue - Your videos are useful and well thought out and well researched. Keyboard warriors to be are jealous of someone's success and use all sorts of badly researched information to try to intimidate people. Thank you for your work
Never known a lawyer to give out free information, you are a credit to your profession. Always good content very informative, thanks again for taking the time.
If you send a message containing true information to a person who believes something false (like flat Earth) and that causes them stress and anxiety, would that be an offence?
there are some who are 'triggered' by the most innocuous language just because they hold extreme views on certain topics. Does this really have to go to a court/tribunal to be settled? And aren't politicians some of the most triggering for the majority of us, just by simply opening their mouths..?
while they might be able to trace the IP they could never establish who typed the keys. also i always put a thick piece of tape over the camera of any computer. so......
@@888ssss *No use a VPN that offers no logs and data retension.....these are VPN providers outside the UK ....eg Switzerland based is just one example* 😁👍
What if the online troll uses Nord VPN to disguise their identity? The problem with the UK law is that it is unreasonably vague. Look, I certainly understand that free speech has its limits. Threatening physical violence for instance. Spreading child pornography. Fomenting racial hatreds, etc. All, pretty clearly, speech that needs to be restricted. But mere "offense or anxiety" is an absurdly low, and vague, level. People can, and more recently, do "take offense" at the most trivial, and frequently innocently made, comments. Anxiety? People get anxious over all sorts of things. Like flying, or dogs, or snakes. Or being in a lift, or speaking in front of a crowd. Or having direct eye contact with another person. How is a reasonable person to know how other people might react to their speech? Or whether or not their comment might somehow provoke "anxiety"?
What a sorry state this once great country has become . 2 years for upsetting feelings ???? Forget all the real crime going on around us , so long as the feeble are protected .... and by 'feeble' I don't mean the old and weak but this generation of weaklings who crap themselves if you say BOO to em . God help this nation .
They should never shut down free speech. The only exception is if its harassing, threatening, distressing, bullying tactics. Shutting down channels or videos because of a few words that link to the story, is stupid. When someone posts a clip from mainstream news, for public interest reasons, but the video gets flagged is nonsensical. If its flagged as mature and fair use, it seems idiotic to expect creators to sensor words. People can click off the video, so a lot of it should be down to viewers own control of what they choose to watch. Your videos are very informative, and helpful. Thank you.
The problem is that what is offensive is entirely subjective. If I say that the Koran seems repulsive does that mean I can go to jail? Legislating against free speech is a very slippery slope and it has an exponentially negative effect on freedom and progress. Free speech spawns ideas which spawns other ideas etc etc. In fact free speech is the yard stick to which ideas can be openly and fairly judged.
Being awake is not for the faint of heart. Those who are asleep will just think "trolls are evil so they should be arrested" while those who are awake see it as narrative protection for control purposes.
Unless you're a member of the press in which case you can cause deliberate stress and fear to people on the internet or over any other media even if it leads to mental illness and suicide. And that is fully supported by the legislature, executive and judiciary in the face of the rule of law.
Quick question about the Malicious Communications Act... Based upon the intent aspect, I was wondering if a compelling enough argument could be made that the harassment letters sent to households all over the UK by Capita about not having a TV licence fall within the scope of the act? The specific wording in these letters (of which I have many) is clearly designed to evoke alarm, anxiety and distress in the recipient to solicit a desired response. Whilst I can understand some people believe it's better to simply notify them you don't need one, that still can (and often does) cause follow-up communication or unwanted visits from one of their pseudo thugs who are intent on selling you a TV licence as they are financially incentivised to do so. Capita seems to occupy a blind spot and is able to get away with this unscrupulous practice and has done for many years, scaremongering the general public into paying when they don't need to or pursuing them in court to levy fines against them. I genuinely wonder if anyone could potentially sue for harassment?
I moderate a chat forum that trolls use often. When they are banned their work around is to use a proxy server. They hide behind the proxy servers IP address therefore their IP address is protected. Ban the proxy server they accessed the chat room with they'll just use another of the thousands of proxy servers available. And the downside of banning proxy IP addresses is that a genuine honest person who does not troll will be prevented from entering the chat also if they use these types of servers. What works best on a troll is if they are ignored they will soon go away as they seem to seek attention.
Would be a great law if everyone who used the Internet lived in the UK. Spoiler: they don't, so it doesn't apply / cannot ever / never will apply to 99% of "offenders". Just use the "block" feature and/or move on and/or grow a pair. Next week: The Playground Taunting and Name Calling (snivelling snowflake safe place) Act 2022.
People love being upset and offended. That's what they live for. They can't ignore the trolls. A normal person would simply block users they didn't like, but these pansies live for their tears.
When trolls insult me with foul expletives and tell me I am a jackass or I've only got half a brain I just respond with "Can't help it - I was born that way". when they see they can't rattle me they leave me alone. the worst thing to do is give them the ammunition they are seeking by responding in kind.
This video is awesome - my comments is somewhere along the lines of - internet trolls - ISP logs - there is a sponsor - bet it's VPN - does your VPN track or anonymise - do you trust the VPN provider more than your ISP - irony - jokes - am I now a troll?! - somewhere in all of that there is a really smart comment hahah
The problem in creators not reading the comments is that (for example) if I go out of my way by spending a lot of time and effort explaining something the creator was perhaps unsure about and I don't even get the courtesy of a very basic acknowledgement, I feel quite hard done by and - in some cases - I'll unsubscribe. However, this realises another issue in that the commenter should also be aware that if there are e.g. thousands of comments, it can be very difficult for the creator to get through them all.
This is a great law because under your definition most of what politicians and police and tv companies ect say or shown on things like you tube would put them in the clink
I always understood that a criminal conviction was achieved by providing proof 'beyond reasonable doubt' that a crime , an actual measurable crime, from murder down to a parking fine (where not subsumed into a civil encroachment fee administered by a parking control company) had actually been committed. However, it seems it IS possible to be convicted of 'hate speech' PURELY on the opinion of the offended ,or more often by representatives of the latter on their behalf , that a crime had actually been committed. How did this fundamental change to the principles of criminal law come about without any observable change in that law? This is a pretty fundamental issue so a trained legal perspective would be of interest. Miller v College of Policing was a rare case where the defendant had the resource to fight this lawfare , roughly 3000 a year don't and plead out.
Why is this not applied to solicitors,they kept sending threatening letters to me over a car accident in which I was full comprehensive my insurance wouldn’t pay the solicitors so they sent the letters to me and said that was common practice for me to noise the insurance company so as he could get paid.his answer sue me haha gangsters with wigs on most of them not you good guy you is
I'm South African yet I watch you. You actually do provide a valuable service. I have learned much about law from you. I find it strange that something as important as law is not part of education from the beginning of school to the end...
It’s good to know. Twitter, for example, is practically unusable as it is just full of hate, bots and trolls. You feel thoroughly depressed even spending a few minutes on that platform - so much so that I rarely, if ever, use it. It would be great if some of these hateful people could get brought to justice.
I understand threatening violence, but when did being offending become illegal? As for causing distress or anxiety really? It’s way too objective. Peoples feelings getting hurt should not be legislated for.
I had two people who targeted my imdb page and those of my friends. They used my own name in various forms to troll imdb pages of films and TV shows I had been in. They used my partners name to make sexual innuendo comments on others. They targeted several of us in this way on Facebook twitter Instagram and my own you tube channel. We reported them to the police but were told nothing can be done
The problem is that with the rise of social media people are losing the ability to interact with each other in person. They therefore are getting too comfortable talking to people by text in such a way that they wouldn't dream of doing face to face. We are de-evolving as a species
Owww bless their hurty feelings 😪I don't think any of them have ever actually struggled for much in life,,entitled, yes definitely! Thank you for still wanting to help others rather than destroy them,,there are a few of us left...a few 🙏
It's not trolling if you're simply pointing out the truth via scientifically proven methods. That winds them up no end because they're idiots. This isn't classed as trolling (as trolling is defined) so you should be fine.
I had to take TH-cam off-piste rather a lot to some other weird and wonderful channels just to escape the FE ones that YT suddenly believed I was interested in. Some utter whackjobs out there.
@@legion162 I would advise one simple rule that has served me well in forum discussions etc... Imagine you're explaining your comments to a judge, are they defensible? 👍👍
Does the Malicious Communications Act 1988 Sec 1 apply to TV Licensing? Because many letters received from TV Licensing could caused distress and anxiety to the recipient as they contain threats based on unsubstantiated suppositions..
Can it be proved that the person actually wrote the message in the first place and that in no circumstances could it be written by another person using another persons device
A long time ago I was working in a computer company they had an internal email system ( before internet ) some one left there terminal logged on . Somebody got on to it and sent an email to a group. The next couple of days the guy who left it logged on got into all sorts of trouble. !
It would actually take a fair amount discipline to troll anonymously. Yes you can use a VPN, everyone knows that. Then you register an anonymous account on some forum and you can cause whatever chaos you like whilst your identity is invisible (a pretty sad way to conduct yourself, but there are people who do it). But in that case you must have a VPN connection specifically for this purpose. You can't use the same VPN connection to then login to your regular GMAIL or Twitter account or online banking etc. Otherwise the authorities can just ask those companies for records of your IP address and in this way you will be identified. So I think it is actually a pretty small minority of Internet trolls who remain truly anonymous in their activities online.
@@brianhoskins1979 I did qualify my post with the word 'competent'. Since most trolls aren't it will be a small minority, which was implied. I'm not sure what you're trying to say that I haven't already?
Does this apply to publishers of newspapers ? The Scotsman published a fear based article designed to cause distress claiming the Forth Bridge could be under water by 2050 due to sea level rise. According to my calculator that required sea levels to rise by 1500mm per year, then, and by even more now, if it's true. But NASA says sea levels are rising at a rate of merely 3.4mm per year, not 1500mm per year Therefore, are newspapers, who clearly don't give their output a simple sanity check, causing unnecessary distress ? I argue that they are, given the number of youngsters who incorrectly believe the world could end within ten years due to climate change
What happens if you stand up to misinformation and lies online and call them out for what they are? Is this not freedom of speak, where does the line get muddy in a heated debate or argument?
wish i'd known that any kind of online communication designed to cause distress/anxiety was an offence, I would've informed the police that when they told me there was nothing they could do about a woman posting/spreading false rumours about me online. I guess that's why I watch channels like this.
Council tax causes me distress can I get them done for malicious communications? Given that there's no moral obligation to pay it and all the fake court threats are printed in house and not signed by a judge they're also committing fraud. There rather serious charges aren't they?
Bots being trolls are a problem not addressed by social media platforms particularly those asking to call numbers in their names and impersonating the channel logo where the comments are posted.
How can anyone say you are rubbish' ...with all the information and new law heads up' content, plus you're engaging assertiveness, superb' keep it up sir' I feel you are helping us all to be better people.
The law might say that but when my daughter reported a woman in Romania who sends malicious messages regularly the police won’t do anything and these messages hurt my daughter nd she suffers with her mental health due to her tour in Afghanistan
Had no idea the malicious comms act could be used so broadly. Thank you so much for this information, it really helps with some things. Just wondering, why do police use the protection from harassment act 1997, over the malicious communications act (no hate speech to increase the level of harassment). Isn't harassment a higher bar to pass? Or does one law confer more powers should they continue? Should they actually use both laws? Or is it just a matter of which laws the police know best in that particular department?
Could this law, also catch email/SMS/messages sent by fraudsters and computer virus sent by email/messages? As they are messages which cause distress, when used as intended.
I have a question which you may have already covered so please direct me if you have.. If you're wrongfully arrested for a breach of order say non-mol, and you have evidence and witness accounts to support your innocence can you have the false accuser charged? And is there anything that can be done to prevent this diabolical behaviour from repeating?
Great info and thanks. I'm an amateur writer and a book I have recently published on Amazon received six very nasty, malicious and libelous, unverified purchase reviews in one day, in an obvious collaborated attack, which Amazon published on my sales page. I have complained to Amazon who ignore my concerns. Can anything be done?
According to Tolkien, Trolls turn to stone when exposed to sunlight so just wait until the appear out of their mums back bedroom into the light then the sun will sort them out.
One problem is that someone who intends to call out someone who has committed an offence could end up misconstrued as "malicious communications" (and thus legally classed as troll). I guess the courts would assess the situation(s) the communication were made and if the communication was resultant of undue distress caused by the claimant? i.e. Family member A has previously attacked family member B for who B is. Family member A has an argument with Family member C and involves A's friend. Family member B falsely accuses C of something unprovable on the basis that a flag was in the background of a picture somewhere. B notices the attack on C is similar to how A attacked B. B, under this new found stress, anxiety and panic, lays out in quite some detail a few of the ways A attacked B and also points out that the photo on A's account had questionable materials created by A (writing, thus incidental) whereas the background of C is coincidental. A loses a friend over B calling A out, however because of how broad the Wiki article is and considering the laws on "malicious communications" if taken literally rather than "in spirit" would mean both A and B should both be put inside for 2 years each. (This is an ultra stripped down of an incident that happened in my family... I'm "B" in this scenario. Nothing came of this and I'm sure if the culprit would've tried courts out, the many screenshots I still have would have the judge siding with I and the person "C") Could you make a video dissecting this scenario to maybe demonstrate what's likely in this case?
The scenario you describe would not turn on whether the calling out was upsetting our not. The issue is whether the jury/magistrate believes after hearing the evidence that the calling out was a sincere attempt at whistleblowing or a mere excuse to retaliate on one troll by return trolling.
@@trueriver1950 Makes sense. In my case, it were an attempt at whistle blowing on the hypocrisy at play so as part of a "damage control" where the person being called out were attempting to damage the reputation of the other person unduly... Technically they were "defaming" the other person as the convo were public, though defamation laws are a very grey area and the first person could excuse "heat of the moment" which is a valid defence, whereas my defence if first person were to attempt a "defamation claim" is the "honest opinion stated under duress of stress" where I'd have the screenshots of what I based my "opinions" on (First person's selfie they posted into public-domain by way of the site's T&Cs of them waving a racist transphobic poster at a BLM march whilst accusing people of racism and transphobia). My guess is that the judge would likely just laugh at us three and tell us to "grow up", give us basic fines and place injunctions between the point of highest tensions.
Who has the arbiter of truth? Who is responsible for regulating ones emotions? Saying that no one likes trolls but I go on twitter and debate gets heated, and sometimes people don't see eye to eye on a subject. People should grow a backbone and use the block button!
Nord Discount link: nordvpn.com/blackbelt
Did you forget to add the link to your livestreamed chat, in the video description section? I can't see it and it sounds interesting...
@@copperfield3629 th-cam.com/video/F_KoL4vuSSA/w-d-xo.html done now, thanks!
I have just tried to use this link and received a message to say it can be reached
@@HOGRiderUK try again - working for me!
Nord VPN have one of the worst track records when it comes to security and keeping people’s details private.
The internet used to be fun, at the start it was just solid trolling from everyone and it was easily understood that none of it matters, it's text on a screen.... now that people have lived their whole lives with the internet they take it waaaay to seriously.
Exactly! Too many snowflakes!
I kind of agree, however there is a line I'm a bit older so was never really affected by it but cyber bullying is a real problem particular for teenage girls.
My view on it is if an individual is continuously targeted with online abuse (threats and so on) then that's well within the realms of harassment
Years ago it was older people and message boards. So you generally had an idea of who were in a particular group or the moderators would step in. People would tolerant differing view points or at least had social skills to debate their point. Most people had a life outside of the internet.
With social media it’s like the Wild West. People can hide behind multiple fake profiles and created pile ons if they have a difference of opinion with someone or it doesn’t fit their narrative.
These trolls have no life except their on line persona and nobody to tell them they are extreme or even breaking the law by their behaviours.
I think it's more to do with how many kids/young adults live their life online these days while 15/20 years ago many ppl that would troll now and again would be in a jokingly way, while these days it has become really harsh and its like living in a rough council estate in the 70s/80s/90s where all the rough ppl chase away normal folk and the area just gets worse and worse
The law is an ass !
Don't ever stop, you provide a great informative service for free.
@@srjwari 😂🤣😂
If only people could actually differentiate between 'trolls' and just people not having the same opinion as them...
I had this earlier today on Facebook :-(
Absolutely.
Agreed. I've been told I'm a troll,once or twice because I didn't agree with someone's views and opinions and agenda's.
Yes agreed, and people are entitled to block if they wish!
Hence the reason for the law change, you will think and do as you are told and any opposing ideas will be criminal...maybe.
I’m a free speech absolutist the only exception being a call to or threat of violence. Someone can voice their option or view I can post mine. It should be as simple as that.
This is UK law, free speach doesn't exist here, that's an American only thing
Agreed, threats and incitement aside.
Agreed!
So you'd be happy to make it legal to abuse disabled people or minorities and call them the most disgusting things so long as they don't advocate violence? Really?
@@chriscjjones8182 not anymore is not...
The problem with criminalising trolling is that ultimately it attacks freedom of speech. Trolls are idiots, just ignore them.But it should never be a police matter. I know a lot of people will disagree with that, but I wish we had a first amendment like USA.Otherwise the authorities will keep nibbling away at our freedoms by stealth.
Watching some audit channels and some of them are a joke but some offer useful information. USA it seems to be a citizens right to be able to swear at the police when stopped, freedom of speech...
It does depend how far it goes when people are getting death and rape threats it’s to far or the cases where they have goaded someone into suicide.
Obviously obscene photos should be against the law
@@TheDarkVampire666 Death and rape threats ARE NOT free speech, so that does not apply.
Absolutely. Unfortunately, unlike the US, freedom of speech is not a right in the UK. Freedom of speech is only tolerated and can be rescinded at any time. People hearing that internet trolls can go to prison are obviously happy, but they don't realise that this rule is entirely based on opinion, so it can easily be turned against anyone. It is just one more tool the authorities have that they can use to silence and persecute people they don't like.
It's no different from what we are allowed to say face-to-face. We don't have full freedom of speech and neither should we in my opinion. You can't incite hatred or violence against someone. Things you say can infringe on other people's safety and wellbeing. It's all a balancing act.
Problem we now have so many sensitive souls that will complain about hurty feelings with the slightest bit of criticism.
Calling out an idiot,because he's an idiot,isn't "trolling"it's a matter of opinion that in a healthy society should be open to debate,and not threats of running to YT to get the "offender" deplatformed.
Do you feel the same way about the trolls who pick on young adults or children?
Calling someone an idiot is a statement that provokes an emotional response, which is precisely the definition of trolling.
@@margaretnicol3423 "Won't you think of the children" is the first go to excuse for those who actually want to crush opposing opinions and information.
I really don't think that trolling is about calling someone an idiot. I mean, if someone is regularly calling someone an idiot online then I would suggest their levels of civility and decorum are low, but it's not trolling. Trolling would be deliberate intimidation, threats, bullying, using maybe racism etc.
@@TheDiggidee
How is calling someone who has demonstrated they're an idiot,an idiot,trolling?
Do we all now just agree with everything,no matter how stupid,because that appears to be what you're suggesting.
Sorry if this response gives you hurty feelings,but that's just tough.
I also think Trolls lead a very lonely life with very few friends
27 years online, IT professional. "Trolling" can be benign. I'm sure we have all trolled a friend. The scenario is usually your friend is ranting about something or is annoyed by something and so you lead them along with responses designed to get them more and more wound up. At some point it is very obvious you are trolling, some banterous insults are exchanged and everyone remains friends.
The media and it's hype however have, as always repurposed the word through over and incorrect use to refer to basically "online bullies". I would counter they are two disctinct things. While an online bully will conduct in trolling, the intent is usually very different.
I'm pretty sure you have been in enough court sittings to know that "Trolling" and "Bullying" are not only common, but standard practice. Forcing a witness (not a defendant) to tears is standard and allowed. I have seen this several times, it was delibrate, it was designed, premeditated full on character attack and assassination in front of a room with 30 people in it. No comments made. I walked out and slammed the court door behind me and went for a smoke before I ended up in contempt voicing my opinion.
Trolling and "being a troll" are miss used. Mild trolling can be VERY common in exasperating a debate for example.
That brings me to the word "intent". This law (as you mentioned) still requires "intent" be proven? However a lot of other laws these days have shifted the definition of "offended" as to whatever the receiver believes it to be. So in those cases, it matters not that you intended to offend, but only that the complaining party 'was' offended, or at least 'claims' to have been offended. This is legal lunacy. It's basically righting a blank charge cheque to everyone who wishes to take offense to something, no matter how contrived.
Worse still, such laws are wide open to abuse by malicious individuals who contrive to be offended by an innocently intended remark, knowing full well the repercussions for the individual on the receiving end of the police investigation. Such laws belong better in authoritarian police states than in a country such as the U.K. and play a not inconsiderable role in eroding the right to freedom of expression in this country.
I wouldn't describe trading insults among friends as trolling -- and I would dispute your claim that the word includes that at all.
I agree that much courtroom cross examination is distasteful or worse -- but again I am not sure that it would be called trolling. It is not "digressive" for example to quote just one of the adjectives quoted from Wikipedia. Or at least if it is then the judge should stop it forthwith.
You are certainly mistaken about intent as well, at least under English law, and this barrister and this channel is only about English law. There is no right in England to be deliberately offensive simply for self entertainment, as there may well be in some other jurisdictions. This channel is not about what the law should be but about what it actually is. Go to a political channel if you think the law needs changing.
Intent comes into many other offences and intent here is no different.
A jury or a magistrate is often asked to decide whether an accused intended to leave a shop without paying or was it genuine forgetfulness, what an accused intent was in carrying a screwdriver (was it because as a tool as he's a mechanic or to use as a weapon against rival fans at a sporting event?), was it an honest mistake when the defendant added an extra set to their annual income on a credit application; or as here whether the intent was to cause offence.
These are classic jury decisions. A jury as part of the general public is deemed more likely to be an accurate judge of intent than a learned judge who spends their whole life in an ivory tower.
Only in theory can you argue that we never know someone else's intent. In practice we usually can tell whether an excuse is plausible or not. If the excuse given raises a reasonable level of doubt then the jury or magistrate will acquit. If the doubt is only at the minuscule level of philosophical theory then they will convict, and rightly so otherwise much of the law would be rendered ineffective.
So it is not about whether the supposed victim is upset, but about the intention a neutral person would reasonably infer from the behaviour that led to the charge.
And you can be guilty of the offence if you intended to offend, even if your target is not actually offended. It is the defendants intent that matters, not whether the supposed victim is or is not a "snowflake"
If you are offended here by being told you are wrong, that wasn't my intention.
I just wish these "Barristers" would either stay in the court room or actually learn a thing or two about the real world and stop following stupid media terms like "Trolling" when it's being vastly over and miss used.
I see trolling a hundred times a day. On FB, YT etc. Admins dont do anything because, classical trolling is not that "offensive." As soon as someone crosses a line, it stops being trolling and starts being "a dick" or "offensive" and gets kicked/banned/reported.
It's like dozens of other, particular IT in origin, terms which get miss used and they are starting to be pick up in law which is always a distaster.
@@trueriver1950 Two points:
1. Daniel often calls for discussions on parts of law, so I don't see why a healthy discussion about the merits of any particular legislation should be excluded. He even said in a pervious video words to the effect that the law needs to be looked at and discussed as part of the process of removing absurdities.
2. The comedian known as "Count Dankula" was handed a £800 fine for one joke even though the court agreed that the supposedly aggrieved parties _were not_ the target of his joke. Intent *did not matter,* it was the effect on others which apparently counted.
it's not "trolling" it's called FREE SPEECH,
if you are "upset" by reading word's on a computer screen, you've escaped from your padded cell and straight jacket,
*THERE IS NO SUCH THING AS FREE SPEECH IN "GREAT BRITAIN" 😐*
as prof peterson states if people have something hateful to say they must be allowed to say it so it will be reasoned and ultimatly rejected. we must have this balance in a civil society.
@@HelloHello33333 I deal with them all the time, they are there for the attention which means they suffer from attaention deficit. these are low resoution people trying to promote a simple idelogy. as soon as you introduce a few facts and ask for the same they go away.
"who sends information known to be false" Why aren't all politicians/journalists in gaol?
Imagine a Government being so arrogant they think they can stop folks having a laugh, 99.9% of Trolls are just having a Giraffe.
Yes but if I take offense then I can get you into trouble.
There's having a Gaff, and then there's having a Gaff.
Some are just plain nasty for their own gratification, and don't come over as funny to anyone else.
@@mickk8519 Then ignore and/or block them.
@@thedave7760 and that’s what’s wrong. Why should people that are offended get people that offended them in trouble?
@@TheTreherne Congratulations you figured it out.
Why?
Power and control = wealth.
How?
Because we are in the grasp of a 5th generation war that is using propaganda to tell us how we all should think and behave and using that to punish certain thoughts.
Orwell documents pretty well how this works.
We used to have free speech, now you can't even breath without some one having a go at you!
Utterly ridiculous. Of course the police are watching witter as opposed to genuine victim type crimes.
Farts are funny just stating actual fact end of.
@@zuluwarrior1648 im reporting you! You troll!
I agree, until a certain point, me pissing around messaging random people is not bad, me repeatedly messaging the same person upsetting them to a high extent is
@@Adthin that's why we have a block button feature.
Trolling done right in itself is an art form
You of all people would say that
😄😄😄
Then might I suggest that internet trolls create their own channels? Presumably, abuse would consist of the rest of us commenting on the channel in the most reasonable and gentle of tones in order to provoke an emotional response on the part of the troll ....
Literary graffiti?
@@thomasm1964 Why not just block the people who make you cry? Then there's no issue.
He who controls the information a person can receive can manipulate their perceptions and therefore control their behaviour. What do you think the media do? Their owners (worlds richest people) want to do the manipulation. They paid for this law.
2 yrs for hurt feelings, yet the other day a guy runs over a cyclist and gets 2 yrs 9 months.....this world if fucking shit.
MPs could have hurty feelings but could also run over a bike so we can see why one is soft and the other is harder
Playing the devil's advocate to stimulate debate is a constant in parliament so are they all trolls too . You are the peoples barrister BBB and it's clear to see you enjoy yourself in that role by creating content for the public , not sure why anyone would try and cancel you for providing a public service,
Not only that, but quite a few of the official communications issued by government in the past two years easily fall under the definition of "trolling".
@@CristiNeaguThose in authority are conditioned to pull the wool over the eyes of the public they are brainwashed and programmed to lie .
Now all eyes are on them and the public are pulling those fake masks off and using legislation to flush them from the system
@@markdunkling1604 History has shown that this rarely happens without it being directed by the a new generation of scumbags just waiting to take control.
@@CristiNeagu History shows nothing except what the powers that be want you to see . Tyrants can not survive in a system where they are forced to be transparent and accountable for their actions .
@@CristiNeagu Or just blatant crimes, deceptions and lies in order to stimulate personal wealth and power. But thats all lawful because they say it is.
Thanks for this info. Given what you said, why shouldn't a solicitor's letter, perhaps threatening court action or some other adverse consequence, not be in breach of the provision? Its primary aim is to elicit anxiety and distress in the receiver such that he/she complies with some desired outcome..
Many years ago, I had an account on Twitter. I was randomly scrolling through some stuff, when I noticed someone posting a long winded whine about how the local council were useless, they hadn't properly signposted a location the person was trying to get to, and they "had no choice but to drive the wrong way down a one way street" once they realised they were lost. As expected, the majority of replies were of the "how terrible the experience must have been, hope you've not been too stressed, sue the buggers" type.🤔
I pointed out that it maybe wasn't the most intelligent thing to do, posting an admission of committing a traffic offence on an open public forum. (I may have used the word "moronic" at some point). Over the next few hours, I received a flurry of replies of absolute abuse that I'd had the temerity to not fawn over the original poster. When I pointed out that being a snowflake doesn't excuse stupidity, I was reported and banned. 🤷♂️.
Never thought I'd see a world where hurt feelings trump objective reality.
Sounds like the people that run it are the same ones that moderate a forum I use. I used to post a lot and helped many people in many areas. Someone wanted to commit fraud and I was polite and said "no you cannot do that its fraud". Thats it.. Following post had expletives and calling them all sorts of names.. Login to find a warning and my post removed yet the abusive one still intact.. Contacted the forum team and must have got the person that actually made the mistake... They were obviously embarassed at their mistake but would not back down stating that I could report the other post.. That started me off... I need to report an abusive post that you know about yet accidently deleted mine instead???
I was like a dog with his favourite bone now... They just would not admit they made a mistake, instead they threated to kick me off the forum for wasting their time.
Banned me again recently because I told someone to install some software without the registration code, it acts as a 30 day trial. Seems thats illegal???
So the developer designed it to run in trial mode for 30 days for what reason? Idiots.... :)
Internet used to be a nice place where you needed a bit of knowledge to get online, it was a nicer place back then.
It's all about narratives these days, not facts. The idea is that there is no one truth, and everyone has their individual truth, and what is true for me may not be true for you. As such, the only thing that matters is viewpoint.
@@CristiNeagu
Right out of the Boris Johnson / Donald Trump 1984 playbook.
“It appeared that there had even been demonstrations to thank Big Brother for raising the chocolate ration to twenty grammes a week. And only yesterday, he reflected, it had been announced that the ration was to be REDUCED to twenty grammes a week.
@@ianl1052 Tell me you don't know anything about Trump without telling me you don't know anything about Trump...
there is a caravan forum in the uk that is a bit like that, dont dare disagree with the mods
This is disgusting. The government should never have the power to arrest people for speech. Especially not on the internet. Just block them.
They paint the world full of shadows... and then tell their children to stay close to the light. Their light. Their reasons, their judgments. Because in the darkness, there be dragons. But it isn't true. -Capt Flint, Black Sails
It's always the same subjects that people get upset over, just accept not everybody has the same opinion. Trolls just exploit this, sometimes with humour.
Absolutely, prison is a bit extreme for someone punching up
It’s not really about trolling though it’s more government censorship. Eg I could have been found guilty of trolling the government when I was banging on about Vaccine legislation but technically I was correct as government legislation breached the Equality Act.
In the future you will go to jail for standing up for your rights but apart from BBB raising the issue have you heard this on the mainstream media?
This is why this law is bad for free speech. What is trolling, anything that goes against the government?
Exactly , I mean look at all the people out there who are still offended through religion ! Quite frankly it's offensive in 2022people still believe in fairies and trolls 😂
Everyone with not the same opinion as me should be jailed, as that makes me stressed and anxious 😭
Really interested to know how this law might apply to the threatening letters from BBC licensing?
Turns on intent. Is the intent to get you to desist from possibly illegal behaviour or is the primary motive to get you upset?
I hope no one moans about you having a sponsor, you deserve something good. Thank you for all the helpful videos.
It can’t proved who actually wrote the said message .. only the device from which it’s sent , correct ?
It's really sad that there are people who live to spread negativity and cause emotional distress to others
I think quite a few of them are fans of this channel from some of the comments..
If only there was a way to block these people... oh, wait, THERE IS! LOL!
But its funny
While I dont agree with jail time for trolling it is still bullying. Being an arsehole just to get reaction from person is rather pathetic and they ought to focus on being a better person.
Glad you plan to carry on. I really appreciate your regular explanation of all things legal. Thank you.
Hi Black Belt - Keep doing what you do - you deserve to get sponsorship - you deserve to receive revenue - Your videos are useful and well thought out and well researched. Keyboard warriors to be are jealous of someone's success and use all sorts of badly researched information to try to intimidate people. Thank you for your work
Can the malicious comms act be used against Capita for sending threatening letters over the TV license?
The irony of the advert when talking about internet trolls.
Troll + VPN = Harder to trace.
And there was me thinking trolls could be found under a bridge
Being under a bridge is just like having a VPN! :)
Never known a lawyer to give out free information,
you are a credit to your profession.
Always good content very informative,
thanks again for taking the time.
Hey Robert good to see you here 🤗
If you send a message containing true information to a person who believes something false (like flat Earth) and that causes them stress and anxiety, would that be an offence?
In todays world probably.
there are some who are 'triggered' by the most innocuous language just because they hold extreme views on certain topics. Does this really have to go to a court/tribunal to be settled? And aren't politicians some of the most triggering for the majority of us, just by simply opening their mouths..?
I am glad you read the comments, I would hate to think I am wasting my time.
I was so tempted to troll away under this just for some fun...but I didn't want anyone to take it seriously. 😉😊
while they might be able to trace the IP they could never establish who typed the keys. also i always put a thick piece of tape over the camera of any computer. so......
@@888ssss *No use a VPN that offers no logs and data retension.....these are VPN providers outside the UK ....eg Switzerland based is just one example* 😁👍
What if the online troll uses Nord VPN to disguise their identity?
The problem with the UK law is that it is unreasonably vague.
Look, I certainly understand that free speech has its limits. Threatening physical violence for instance. Spreading child pornography. Fomenting racial hatreds, etc. All, pretty clearly, speech that needs to be restricted.
But mere "offense or anxiety" is an absurdly low, and vague, level. People can, and more recently, do "take offense" at the most trivial, and frequently innocently made, comments. Anxiety? People get anxious over all sorts of things. Like flying, or dogs, or snakes. Or being in a lift, or speaking in front of a crowd. Or having direct eye contact with another person. How is a reasonable person to know how other people might react to their speech? Or whether or not their comment might somehow provoke "anxiety"?
It’s a car crash waiting to happen.
What a sorry state this once great country has become . 2 years for upsetting feelings ???? Forget all the real crime going on around us , so long as the feeble are protected .... and by 'feeble' I don't mean the old and weak but this generation of weaklings who crap themselves if you say BOO to em . God help this nation .
We are done. I’m leaving this sinking ship asap.
Nord VPN, a must have for internet trolls! LOL
😂
They should never shut down free speech.
The only exception is if its harassing, threatening, distressing, bullying tactics.
Shutting down channels or videos because of a few words that link to the story, is stupid.
When someone posts a clip from mainstream news, for public interest reasons, but the video gets flagged is nonsensical.
If its flagged as mature and fair use, it seems idiotic to expect creators to sensor words. People can click off the video, so a lot of it should be down to viewers own control of what they choose to watch.
Your videos are very informative, and helpful. Thank you.
The problem is that what is offensive is entirely subjective. If I say that the Koran seems repulsive does that mean I can go to jail? Legislating against free speech is a very slippery slope and it has an exponentially negative effect on freedom and progress. Free speech spawns ideas which spawns other ideas etc etc. In fact free speech is the yard stick to which ideas can be openly and fairly judged.
Being awake is not for the faint of heart. Those who are asleep will just think "trolls are evil so they should be arrested" while those who are awake see it as narrative protection for control purposes.
Unless you're a member of the press in which case you can cause deliberate stress and fear to people on the internet or over any other media even if it leads to mental illness and suicide. And that is fully supported by the legislature, executive and judiciary in the face of the rule of law.
Quick question about the Malicious Communications Act...
Based upon the intent aspect, I was wondering if a compelling enough argument could be made that the harassment letters sent to households all over the UK by Capita about not having a TV licence fall within the scope of the act?
The specific wording in these letters (of which I have many) is clearly designed to evoke alarm, anxiety and distress in the recipient to solicit a desired response.
Whilst I can understand some people believe it's better to simply notify them you don't need one, that still can (and often does) cause follow-up communication or unwanted visits from one of their pseudo thugs who are intent on selling you a TV licence as they are financially incentivised to do so.
Capita seems to occupy a blind spot and is able to get away with this unscrupulous practice and has done for many years, scaremongering the general public into paying when they don't need to or pursuing them in court to levy fines against them.
I genuinely wonder if anyone could potentially sue for harassment?
I moderate a chat forum that trolls use often. When they are banned their work around is to use a proxy server. They hide behind the proxy servers IP address therefore their IP address is protected. Ban the proxy server they accessed the chat room with they'll just use another of the thousands of proxy servers available. And the downside of banning proxy IP addresses is that a genuine honest person who does not troll will be prevented from entering the chat also if they use these types of servers.
What works best on a troll is if they are ignored they will soon go away as they seem to seek attention.
Would be a great law if everyone who used the Internet lived in the UK. Spoiler: they don't, so it doesn't apply / cannot ever / never will apply to 99% of "offenders". Just use the "block" feature and/or move on and/or grow a pair. Next week: The Playground Taunting and Name Calling (snivelling snowflake safe place) Act 2022.
I will not comply
More censorship if you don't like what someone says here's a crazy idea ignore them
People love being upset and offended. That's what they live for. They can't ignore the trolls. A normal person would simply block users they didn't like, but these pansies live for their tears.
When trolls insult me with foul expletives and tell me I am a jackass or I've only got half a brain I just respond with "Can't help it - I was born that way". when they see they can't rattle me they leave me alone. the worst thing to do is give them the ammunition they are seeking by responding in kind.
This video is awesome - my comments is somewhere along the lines of - internet trolls - ISP logs - there is a sponsor - bet it's VPN - does your VPN track or anonymise - do you trust the VPN provider more than your ISP - irony - jokes - am I now a troll?! - somewhere in all of that there is a really smart comment hahah
The problem in creators not reading the comments is that (for example) if I go out of my way by spending a lot of time and effort explaining something the creator was perhaps unsure about and I don't even get the courtesy of a very basic acknowledgement, I feel quite hard done by and - in some cases - I'll unsubscribe. However, this realises another issue in that the commenter should also be aware that if there are e.g. thousands of comments, it can be very difficult for the creator to get through them all.
@Tom Foster
That’s fair enough. Although my issue is more with the observed lack of common courtesy rather than the placation of my own ego.
This is a great law because under your definition most of what politicians and police and tv companies ect say or shown on things like you tube would put them in the clink
BBB, hope you read this because I want to say it's great to know you are going to keep going.
I always understood that a criminal conviction was achieved by providing proof 'beyond reasonable doubt' that a crime , an actual measurable crime, from murder down to a parking fine (where not subsumed into a civil encroachment fee administered by a parking control company) had actually been committed.
However, it seems it IS possible to be convicted of 'hate speech' PURELY on the opinion of the offended ,or more often by representatives of the latter on their behalf , that a crime had actually been committed.
How did this fundamental change to the principles of criminal law come about without any observable change in that law?
This is a pretty fundamental issue so a trained legal perspective would be of interest.
Miller v College of Policing was a rare case where the defendant had the resource to fight this lawfare , roughly 3000 a year don't and plead out.
Thanks, information from someone who knows the law is always useful!
Your channel has been a great source of legal information and made me aware of many laws I did not know exist keep it up
Why is this not applied to solicitors,they kept sending threatening letters to me over a car accident in which I was full comprehensive my insurance wouldn’t pay the solicitors so they sent the letters to me and said that was common practice for me to noise the insurance company so as he could get paid.his answer sue me haha gangsters with wigs on most of them not you good guy you is
How come the sending threats to cause distress but doesn't apply to TV licencing? Or is this electronic messages only?
I'm South African yet I watch you. You actually do provide a valuable service.
I have learned much about law from you.
I find it strange that something as important as law is not part of education from the beginning of school to the end...
Law and finance should be crucial parts of a well established education system.
@@EdOeuna...yes sir especially since the law is part of every person's life yet we are mostly ignorant about it.
no one is themselves online. everyone is a version of how they perceive themselves.
The UK government and judicial system seems to be using the novel 1984 as a guide book. Glad I left that country years ago.
If I got put away for words, when I got out I would be angry wanting vengeance. I'm starting to think FREEDOM or DEATH!
It’s good to know. Twitter, for example, is practically unusable as it is just full of hate, bots and trolls. You feel thoroughly depressed even spending a few minutes on that platform - so much so that I rarely, if ever, use it. It would be great if some of these hateful people could get brought to justice.
Twitter is a cesspool regardless tbh
What happened to the saying “Sticks and stones will break my bones but names will never hurt me” Too many snowflakes about now that’s the problem
Well, I believe your posts are brilliant, so informative and interesting. Keep them coming.
I understand threatening violence, but when did being offending become illegal? As for causing distress or anxiety really?
It’s way too objective.
Peoples feelings getting hurt should not be legislated for.
I had two people who targeted my imdb page and those of my friends. They used my own name in various forms to troll imdb pages of films and TV shows I had been in. They used my partners name to make sexual innuendo comments on others. They targeted several of us in this way on Facebook twitter Instagram and my own you tube channel. We reported them to the police but were told nothing can be done
I got to the part where the sponsors were talked about...and turned off the sound to start typing.....
The problem is that with the rise of social media people are losing the ability to interact with each other in person. They therefore are getting too comfortable talking to people by text in such a way that they wouldn't dream of doing face to face. We are de-evolving as a species
Owww bless their hurty feelings 😪I don't think any of them have ever actually struggled for much in life,,entitled, yes definitely! Thank you for still wanting to help others rather than destroy them,,there are a few of us left...a few 🙏
Isn't it slightly Ironic that trolls could use Nord VPN to prevent them being caught in the first place?
I really hope there is an exception for flat earth, and, free man of the land type channels, I really can't help my trolling and baiting them.
It's not trolling if you're simply pointing out the truth via scientifically proven methods. That winds them up no end because they're idiots. This isn't classed as trolling (as trolling is defined) so you should be fine.
I should imagine that can be classed as education and civic duty 😆
I had to take TH-cam off-piste rather a lot to some other weird and wonderful channels just to escape the FE ones that YT suddenly believed I was interested in. Some utter whackjobs out there.
@@CraigNiel ohhhhh, I can class myself as an educator now then, not a troll 😂🤣
@@legion162 I would advise one simple rule that has served me well in forum discussions etc... Imagine you're explaining your comments to a judge, are they defensible? 👍👍
Thank you for that and keep the videos coming. Stay safe. ATB. Nigel
The irony of a video where you mention ISPs tracking trolls then immediately have an advert for a VPN!
The worlds gone soft... even keyboard warriors who live with their mums are now scary...
You do right ignoring the negative comments. Your channel is both well presented and extremely informative. Top guy!!
Does the Malicious Communications Act 1988 Sec 1 apply to TV Licensing? Because many letters received from TV Licensing could caused distress and anxiety to the recipient as they contain threats based on unsubstantiated suppositions..
Can it be proved that the person actually wrote the message in the first place and that in no circumstances could it be written by another person using another persons device
A long time ago I was working in a computer company they had an internal email system ( before internet ) some one left there terminal logged on . Somebody got on to it and sent an email to a group. The next couple of days the guy who left it logged on got into all sorts of trouble. !
Any competent troll will use a VPN and anonymous ID's, next to impossible to track. It will be the non-tech savvy ones that get caught by this law.
It would actually take a fair amount discipline to troll anonymously. Yes you can use a VPN, everyone knows that. Then you register an anonymous account on some forum and you can cause whatever chaos you like whilst your identity is invisible (a pretty sad way to conduct yourself, but there are people who do it). But in that case you must have a VPN connection specifically for this purpose. You can't use the same VPN connection to then login to your regular GMAIL or Twitter account or online banking etc. Otherwise the authorities can just ask those companies for records of your IP address and in this way you will be identified.
So I think it is actually a pretty small minority of Internet trolls who remain truly anonymous in their activities online.
@@brianhoskins1979 I did qualify my post with the word 'competent'. Since most trolls aren't it will be a small minority, which was implied. I'm not sure what you're trying to say that I haven't already?
Does this apply to publishers of newspapers ? The Scotsman published a fear based article designed to cause distress claiming the Forth Bridge could be under water by 2050 due to sea level rise. According to my calculator that required sea levels to rise by 1500mm per year, then, and by even more now, if it's true.
But NASA says sea levels are rising at a rate of merely 3.4mm per year, not 1500mm per year
Therefore, are newspapers, who clearly don't give their output a simple sanity check, causing unnecessary distress ? I argue that they are, given the number of youngsters who incorrectly believe the world could end within ten years due to climate change
Info is King, thanks for the info!
What happens if you stand up to misinformation and lies online and call them out for what they are? Is this not freedom of speak, where does the line get muddy in a heated debate or argument?
wish i'd known that any kind of online communication designed to cause distress/anxiety was an offence, I would've informed the police that when they told me there was nothing they could do about a woman posting/spreading false rumours about me online. I guess that's why I watch channels like this.
Please keep it up, your advice has been very helpful.
Council tax causes me distress can I get them done for malicious communications?
Given that there's no moral obligation to pay it and all the fake court threats are printed in house and not signed by a judge they're also committing fraud.
There rather serious charges aren't they?
Bots being trolls are a problem not addressed by social media platforms particularly those asking to call numbers in their names and impersonating the channel logo where the comments are posted.
My take on a KB warrior is someone who argues aggressively online There is no way that could be an arrestable offence
How can anyone say you are rubbish' ...with all the information and new law heads up' content, plus you're engaging assertiveness, superb' keep it up sir' I feel you are helping us all to be better people.
Hearsay and conjecture is one thing, your channel is fact led and informative. I like it, thanks!
The law might say that but when my daughter reported a woman in Romania who sends malicious messages regularly the police won’t do anything and these messages hurt my daughter nd she suffers with her mental health due to her tour in Afghanistan
Had no idea the malicious comms act could be used so broadly. Thank you so much for this information, it really helps with some things.
Just wondering, why do police use the protection from harassment act 1997, over the malicious communications act (no hate speech to increase the level of harassment). Isn't harassment a higher bar to pass? Or does one law confer more powers should they continue? Should they actually use both laws? Or is it just a matter of which laws the police know best in that particular department?
Could this law, also catch email/SMS/messages sent by fraudsters and computer virus sent by email/messages? As they are messages which cause distress, when used as intended.
I have a question which you may have already covered so please direct me if you have..
If you're wrongfully arrested for a breach of order say non-mol, and you have evidence and witness accounts to support your innocence can you have the false accuser charged?
And is there anything that can be done to prevent this diabolical behaviour from repeating?
Great info and thanks. I'm an amateur writer and a book I have recently published on Amazon received six very nasty, malicious and libelous, unverified purchase reviews in one day, in an obvious collaborated attack, which Amazon published on my sales page. I have complained to Amazon who ignore my concerns. Can anything be done?
According to Tolkien, Trolls turn to stone when exposed to sunlight so just wait until the appear out of their mums back bedroom into the light then the sun will sort them out.
One problem is that someone who intends to call out someone who has committed an offence could end up misconstrued as "malicious communications" (and thus legally classed as troll).
I guess the courts would assess the situation(s) the communication were made and if the communication was resultant of undue distress caused by the claimant?
i.e. Family member A has previously attacked family member B for who B is. Family member A has an argument with Family member C and involves A's friend. Family member B falsely accuses C of something unprovable on the basis that a flag was in the background of a picture somewhere. B notices the attack on C is similar to how A attacked B. B, under this new found stress, anxiety and panic, lays out in quite some detail a few of the ways A attacked B and also points out that the photo on A's account had questionable materials created by A (writing, thus incidental) whereas the background of C is coincidental. A loses a friend over B calling A out, however because of how broad the Wiki article is and considering the laws on "malicious communications" if taken literally rather than "in spirit" would mean both A and B should both be put inside for 2 years each. (This is an ultra stripped down of an incident that happened in my family... I'm "B" in this scenario. Nothing came of this and I'm sure if the culprit would've tried courts out, the many screenshots I still have would have the judge siding with I and the person "C")
Could you make a video dissecting this scenario to maybe demonstrate what's likely in this case?
The scenario you describe would not turn on whether the calling out was upsetting our not.
The issue is whether the jury/magistrate believes after hearing the evidence that the calling out was a sincere attempt at whistleblowing or a mere excuse to retaliate on one troll by return trolling.
@@trueriver1950 Makes sense.
In my case, it were an attempt at whistle blowing on the hypocrisy at play so as part of a "damage control" where the person being called out were attempting to damage the reputation of the other person unduly...
Technically they were "defaming" the other person as the convo were public, though defamation laws are a very grey area and the first person could excuse "heat of the moment" which is a valid defence, whereas my defence if first person were to attempt a "defamation claim" is the "honest opinion stated under duress of stress" where I'd have the screenshots of what I based my "opinions" on (First person's selfie they posted into public-domain by way of the site's T&Cs of them waving a racist transphobic poster at a BLM march whilst accusing people of racism and transphobia).
My guess is that the judge would likely just laugh at us three and tell us to "grow up", give us basic fines and place injunctions between the point of highest tensions.
Who has the arbiter of truth? Who is responsible for regulating ones emotions? Saying that no one likes trolls but I go on twitter and debate gets heated, and sometimes people don't see eye to eye on a subject. People should grow a backbone and use the block button!
If the troll turns out to be in another country, is there any way to deal with them under UK law?
Of course there isn't they are not subject to UK law.