What is an 'internet troll'?

[Brietta]

Something is done. Occasionally. You should be asking the police and/or CPS why it's not done more often really.

It would be interesting to know what the figures are for different policing authorities and prosecution services for crimes of this type.
Some authorities appear to have a better record of successful prosecutions than others.

[Carana]

Something is done. Occasionally. You should be asking the police and/or CPS why it's not done more often really.

I expect that the police / CPS are overwhelmed and only take action in specific incidents that have gone viral and in which there is a clear transgression of a criminal law at issue.

[G-Unit]

I disagree (back to normal then).

The Drs McCann have been involved in a libel trial in Portugal for a number of years.  This has taken up time and energy which could have been better spent in working in the search for their daughter and devoting more time to their other children, although this trial was a factor in that and had to be got out of the way for that reason.

I think the assessment might have been made that although an irritant the trolls have not actually been harming the search for Madeleine in the same way Mr Amaral's allegations have (bearing in mind his status in the case) and the trolls can be safely put on the back burner for the time being.

I think public opinion is against trolls of any description as more and more ordinary folk either have experience or know someone who has had experience of the misuse of social media being used to detrimental effect by them.

How many 'normal' people have found and read Amaral's allegations would you think? I think very few.

[Carana]

Forget The McCanns for a minute.  What about just plain Trolling, attacking anyone who is in distress?
Something needs to be done.

I agree (whoever it concerns). As I tried to point out further up.

[Brietta]

The problem is, Eleanor, that there are several definitions of trolling. Some of them don't include 'attacking anyone who is in distress'. That's just your definition. Before anything can be done a firm definition has to be arrived at, one which everyone agrees on. Trolling isn't illegal and the police have said, I think, that the existing laws are fine to deal with people who break the law on the internet.

Here's a couple of definitions for you;

Urban Dictionary’s top rated definition for “trolling,” it can be defined as:

“Being a p***k on the internet because you can. Typically unleashing one or more cynical or sarcastic remarks on an innocent by-stander, because it's the internet and, hey, you can.”

Wikipedia defines it as:

"Someone who posts inflammatory, extraneous, or off-topic messages in an online community, such as a forum, chat room, or blog, with the primary intent of provoking readers into an emotional response or of otherwise disrupting normal on-topic discussion.”

The Telecommunications Act would appear to be the best vehicle to use to deal with offenders ... if there is no specific crime for trolls (which I always thought of as lovable as in Alice's new avatar) I am sure there must be other legislation to suit.

[Lyall]

I expect that the police / CPS are overwhelmed and only take action in specific incidents that have gone viral and in which there is a clear transgression of a criminal law at issue.

I think so too. They need to be confident of securing a conviction, and that perhaps is made more certain if religious and/or racial communications are also involved.

[Brietta]

And the best thing to do about it was select someone randomly like Sky News?

You should be condemning them as much as we do.

Reference yet again, to Brenda Leyland's sad suicide rather detracts from the general discussion on internet trolls and suggests you have little to contribute ... which you and I know is not the case.

Please have more respect for her innocent family who very obviously want nothing to do with #mccann or the McCann boards and wish to put the whole sad affair behind them.

[Lyall]

The Telecommunications Act would appear to be the best vehicle to use to deal with offenders ... if there is no specific crime for trolls (which I always thought of as lovable as in Alice's new avatar) I am sure there must be other legislation to suit.

Read the recent Criminal Justice Act.

[Brietta]

How many 'normal' people have found and read Amaral's allegations would you think? I think very few.

In Portugal he was never off the small screen promulgating his views and his book was a best seller there ... so quite a few I imagine.

[Lyall]

Reference yet again, to Brenda Leyland's sad suicide rather detracts from the general discussion on internet trolls and suggests you have little to contribute ... which you and I know is not the case.

Please have more respect for her innocent family who very obviously want nothing to do with #mccann or the McCann boards and wish to put the whole sad affair behind them.

It's history Brietta, and if the people involved in that episode haven't learned from that history they may do the same things again.

[Brietta]

It's history Brietta, and if the people involved in that episode haven't learned from that history they may do the same things again.

It is a matter for Brenda Leyland's family who have to live with the circumstances of her death and should not be used by people like you or me for idle chit chat on an internet forum.

[Carana]

In Portugal he was never off the small screen promulgating his views and his book was a best seller there ... so quite a few I imagine.

CdaM (a tabloid rag with possibly the greatest access to PJ "leaks") appears to have had a massive circulation, somewhat like the Sun, no doubt with a similar readership demographic. Various other daily or weekly tabloids popped up and disappeared again... but the sensationalism was the same.

An issue, perhaps, is that tabloid readers may assume that whatever is reported is true and accurate. Then, of course, there's the Dear Júlia's show, for those watching daytime TV. I don't recall a single one of those related to the McCann issue (at least those that have been uploaded) that could in any way be described as neutral. They all appear to have featured exclusively Amaral's well-known pals or the man himself.

[Lyall]

It is a matter for Brenda Leyland's family who have to live with the circumstances of her death and should not be used by people like you or me for idle chit chat on an internet forum.

I hope you wrote to Swan and Summers about it.

[Alice Purjorick]

Well, your answer wasn't that clear, but did you say a person doesn't have to prove they have been libelled in this country? If you did mean that, I posted to show that they do have to prove it.

.
 
http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2013/26/pdfs/ukpga_20130026_en.pdf
Key areas
    includes a requirement for claimants to show that they have suffered serious harm before suing for defamation
    removes the current presumption in favour of a jury trial
    introduces a defence of "responsible publication on matters of public interest"
    provides increased protection to operators of websites that host user-generated content, providing they comply with the procedure to enable the complainant to resolve disputes directly with the author of the material concerned
    introduces new statutory defences of truth and honest opinion to replace the common law defences of justification. and fair comment.
1         Serious harm
(1)    A statement is not defamatory unless its publication has caused or is likely to cause serious harm to the reputation of the claimant.
(2)    For the purposes of this section, harm to the reputation of a body that trades for profit is not “serious harm” unless it has caused or is likely to cause the body serious financial loss.

[Eleanor]

What though ?

I don't know, Stephen, but I'm pretty sure that they wouldn't get away with most of this shit in France.
Not sure which Law would apply, except perhaps The Privacy Law.