What is an 'internet troll'?

[Alfred R Jones]

I would think they and their advisors/lawyers recognise it would only create martyrs. That should be very obvious after what happened to Brenda.

More martyrs is the last thing you or they need.

You beat the idiots by isolating them and making them insignificant, but unfortunately neither 'side' does that. Instead they feed their egos.

Do you think Spivey will be considered a martyr if he gets punished? 

[Alfred R Jones]

Libel, unlike criminal behaviour, has to be proved by those claiming to have been damaged. You may say people are making libelous comments, but that is just your opinion.

not in this country it doesn't.

[Brietta]

The worst examples were - fortunately for the person in charge of the site (who is well known to everyone here) - thrown down the memory hole by the company hosting it.

I have absolutely no idea to which site you refer ... however you are highlighting and making allegations about one site which apparently no longer exists ... whereas I am spoilt for choice.

[Lyall]

Do you think Spivey will be considered a martyr if he gets punished?

His followers will think he is, but I don't think he has many. After the Summers and Swan book, and the idiotic Sky News action, the people in your dozen do have many.

[Lyall]

I have absolutely no idea to which site you refer ... however you are highlighting and making allegations about one site which apparently no longer exists ... whereas I am spoilt for choice.

True. I can't deny that.

[Alfred R Jones]

His followers will think he is, but I don't think he has many. After the Summers and Swan book, and the idiotic Sky News action, the people in your dozen do have many.

Quantify "many".  You seem to be arguing that individuals who break laws should be let off in case other sickos revere them as martyrs - a good argument not to prosecute terrorists then!

[Brietta]

You're missing the comment by the magistrate about that particular idiots record for making communications that may have or definitely did also infringe religious and racial legislation.

That's what (I would hope) is missing from the communication histories of those you'd like to see prosecuted over their comments about this case.

I have not missed it.  I have included the quote from the troll himself who appears mystified that it was his abuse of the murdered teacher that had been complained about and not his religious and racial hatred diatribes.

A troll is a troll and some may have a multiplicity of targets much as this man had.

I am unable to quote directly in line with forum rules ... but I think you will get my gist when I refer to posts concerning the ethnicity and religious beliefs of the Drs McCann being added to the mix of allegations prevalent among the trolls who post on anything McCann and on every opportunity which comes up.

I refer to the organised assaults on comment opportunities in the tabloids and broadsheets.

[Brietta]

Libel, unlike criminal behaviour, has to be proved by those claiming to have been damaged. You may say people are making libelous comments, but that is just your opinion.

         Which rather puts my opinion firmly in the same box as that of Maria de Melo e Castro.

[Lyall]

Quantify "many".  You seem to be arguing that individuals who break laws should be let off in case other sickos revere them as martyrs - a good argument not to prosecute terrorists then!

They have hundreds, but there are thousands who still have strong opinions about the case (and a great many more who see that so far there is no evidence in the public domain to support your opinion, or to support what DCI Redwood may - or may not - have believed himself. That's your real problem, not the social media folk).

Your argument would have made more sense before the stupid action Sky News took. But you can't reverse time now. That's what I'm arguing.

[G-Unit]

not in this country it doesn't.

Q. What Do I Have to Prove in a Defamation Claim?
A. In both libel and slander cases, you need to prove that:

The allegations have been published to one or more persons (other than yourself)
The allegations refer to you – either that you are named, pictured or are identifiable in some other way
That the words tend to lower you in the eyes of right thinking members of society.
In slander cases, you will also need to prove that you have suffered financial loss, unless the allegations relate to your profession or an offence punishable by imprisonment.



To read more about this from Slater and Gordon see: http://www.slatergordon.co.uk/media-libel-and-privacy/faqs/#ixzz3hTVQcXuN
Follow us: @slatergordonUK on Twitter

[Lyall]

I have not missed it.  I have included the quote from the troll himself who appears mystified that it was his abuse of the murdered teacher that had been complained about and not his religious and racial hatred diatribes.

A troll is a troll and some may have a multiplicity of targets much as this man had.

I am unable to quote directly in line with forum rules ... but I think you will get my gist when I refer to posts concerning the ethnicity and religious beliefs of the Drs McCann being added to the mix of allegations prevalent among the trolls who post on anything McCann and on every opportunity which comes up.

I refer to the organised assaults on comment opportunities in the tabloids and broadsheets.

I know that's organised. They operate like a pressure group, or a lobby. But that's not illegal in itself.

[Brietta]

They have hundreds, but there are thousands who still have strong opinions about the case (and a great many more who see that so far there is no evidence in the public domain to support your opinion, or to support what DCI Redwood may - or may not - have believed himself. That's your real problem, not the social media folk).

Your argument would have made more sense before the stupid action Sky News took. But you can't reverse time now. That's what I'm arguing.

If you think that the views of repeat contributors to Mr Amaral's Gofundme appeal who are numbered in the hundreds are indicative of the opinions held by normal people about Madeleine McCann's case ... you delude yourself.

[stephen25000]

If you think that the views of repeat contributors to Mr Amaral's Gofundme appeal who are numbered in the hundreds are indicative of the opinions held by normal people about Madeleine McCann's case ... you delude yourself.

and do you really believe when normal people are actually told the truth, and there's zip all evidence of abduction, and the fact that there has been no trace of Madeleine in well over 8 years, that they won'[t question the mccanns version of events ?

Mind you, most normal people don't give a monkey's about this case.

[Brietta]

I know that's organised. They operate like a pressure group, or a lobby. But that's not illegal in itself.

Did I say it was?  Abhorrent and immoral yes; and very much an unedifying show of trolls at work.

[Carana]

Q. What Do I Have to Prove in a Defamation Claim?
A. In both libel and slander cases, you need to prove that:

The allegations have been published to one or more persons (other than yourself)
The allegations refer to you – either that you are named, pictured or are identifiable in some other way
That the words tend to lower you in the eyes of right thinking members of society.
In slander cases, you will also need to prove that you have suffered financial loss, unless the allegations relate to your profession or an offence punishable by imprisonment.



To read more about this from Slater and Gordon see: http://www.slatergordon.co.uk/media-libel-and-privacy/faqs/#ixzz3hTVQcXuN
Follow us: @slatergordonUK on Twitter

I don't see the issue.

If someone writes something on the Internet or in a media report, that person has necessarily communicated that message to more than one person.

If the person is named or alluded to in such a way as to be identifiable, then that's covered.

Then there is the issue of damage. I'm not sure how many right-thinking people would find that accusing third parties of criminal activity would not lower their reputation.

An exception to that would be of the substantiated whistleblower type.