Investigation into McCann internet trolls launched by police

[slartibartfast]

Then is Dr Amaral's book illegal?

Do you understand the word discuss?

[John]

Then is Dr Amaral's book illegal?

Dr Amaral was never a witness in the case so he was free to write about it.  I believe the individual being referred to, ... ......., has already been warned that her actions could be construed as an attempt to pervert the course of justice.  I notice her twitter account has been suspended. 

[ferryman]

Then is Dr Amaral's book illegal?

The outcome of the libel trial should give us the definitive answer to whether it is, at least, unlawful ...

[Benice]

An interesting article from Manchester Evening News.

Quote

'A Twitter printout is a witness which will never lie . . . the internet has a long memory'

Internet trolls who think they can get away with spouting abuse online should think again, according to a top Manchester media lawyer.

Steve Kuncewicz, head of intellectual property and media at law firm Bermans, says people who post vile comments online can fall foul of a number of laws - and courts are duty bound to take offences seriously.

He said victims who feel their reputation has been tarnished could also sue in the civil courts for defamation.

Mr Kuncewicz said: “You cannot stop people from voicing their opinions, but there is a very fine line between voicing an opinion and abuse, which is something that courts will take very seriously.”

Trolls could fall foul of the Protection from Harassment Act 1997, which prevents people from pursuing a course of conduct that amounts to harassment.

They could also be found to have breached the Communications Act 2003, which prevents the sending of a message that is ‘grossly offensive’, or of an ‘indecent, obscene or menacing character’.

It is also an offence under the Malicious Communications Act 1988 to send messages to another person which are ‘indecent or grossly offensive’, threatening or false.

Any indecent or grossly offensive message could be considered under this act as an offence if it causes distress or anxiety to the recipient, or ‘any other person to whom he intends that it or its contents or nature should be communicated’.

Anyone who is found guilty of malicious communication could face jail for up to six months or a fine.

Trolls could also fall foul of offences under terrorism legislation and of inciting racial harassment.

Just last month, a man was jailed for 18 weeks after he sent abusive Twitter messages to Labour MP Stella Creasy after she campaigned to put Jane Austen on the £10 note.

Mr Kuncewicz said: “When there have been a few high-profile cases, perhaps the public will start to take notice. That doesn’t seem to be happening at the moment.

“People need to realise that, in the eyes of a judge, there is very little difference between what you say online and what you say offline.

“The witness that will never lie is the printout of what an offender is saying to a victim on Twitter.

“They are creating their own chain of evidence for the prosecution. The internet has a long memory.”
End quote

[slartibartfast]

An interesting article from Manchester Evening News.

Quote

'A Twitter printout is a witness which will never lie . . . the internet has a long memory'

Internet trolls who think they can get away with spouting abuse online should think again, according to a top Manchester media lawyer.

Steve Kuncewicz, head of intellectual property and media at law firm Bermans, says people who post vile comments online can fall foul of a number of laws - and courts are duty bound to take offences seriously.

He said victims who feel their reputation has been tarnished could also sue in the civil courts for defamation.

Mr Kuncewicz said: “You cannot stop people from voicing their opinions, but there is a very fine line between voicing an opinion and abuse, which is something that courts will take very seriously.”

Trolls could fall foul of the Protection from Harassment Act 1997, which prevents people from pursuing a course of conduct that amounts to harassment.

They could also be found to have breached the Communications Act 2003, which prevents the sending of a message that is ‘grossly offensive’, or of an ‘indecent, obscene or menacing character’.

It is also an offence under the Malicious Communications Act 1988 to send messages to another person which are ‘indecent or grossly offensive’, threatening or false.

Any indecent or grossly offensive message could be considered under this act as an offence if it causes distress or anxiety to the recipient, or ‘any other person to whom he intends that it or its contents or nature should be communicated’.

Anyone who is found guilty of malicious communication could face jail for up to six months or a fine.

Trolls could also fall foul of offences under terrorism legislation and of inciting racial harassment.

Just last month, a man was jailed for 18 weeks after he sent abusive Twitter messages to Labour MP Stella Creasy after she campaigned to put Jane Austen on the £10 note.

Mr Kuncewicz said: “When there have been a few high-profile cases, perhaps the public will start to take notice. That doesn’t seem to be happening at the moment.

“People need to realise that, in the eyes of a judge, there is very little difference between what you say online and what you say offline.

“The witness that will never lie is the printout of what an offender is saying to a victim on Twitter.

“They are creating their own chain of evidence for the prosecution. The internet has a long memory.”
End quote

To be pedantic, a printout would not standup as evidence, you would really need an actual online tweet or some form of archive. I don't think the law has really caught up with technology yet.

[jassi]

To be pedantic, a printout would not standup as evidence, you would really need an actual online tweet or some form of archive. I don't think the law has really caught up with technology yet.

Who is to say that such accounts haven't been hacked for malicious purposes?

[slartibartfast]

Who is to say that such accounts haven't been hacked for malicious purposes?

True, forensic IT has a long way to go.

[misty]

Who is to say that such accounts haven't been hacked for malicious purposes?

Most accounts of this type have a log in record which shows the time & location where someone logs in. If you have been hacked, the location recorded would differ from your own.

[Brietta]

I realise that. Sorry for quoting your post.

Thank you, Poppy123.

Welcome to the forum.

[Brietta]

 ... and not from one individual ... but from many ... with literally thousands of abusive messages without let up being posted each week.

Also with the knowledge ... your name is known ... your address is known ... your activities are posted online ... and your childrens' school and route to school are posted on line as well as their leisure activities discussed.
Also with the knowledge some of these people live near you ... they know you ... you do not know them.

I would say that is a very heavy added burden to carry and I cannot understand the mentality of people who would indulge in such a campaign.

[jassi]

  why  do  people let  people upset them online?? mcann supporters  say horrible  things about me i dont care   people can say what they  like

Ah yes, but if you are into image management, these things count, you know.

[carlymichelle]

Ah yes, but if you are into image management, these things count, you know.

gerry  and kate claim they dont read social media i dont believe that

[jassi]

gerry  and kate claim they dont read social media i dont believe that

They don't need to - their Monitor in Chief at Skipton Centre does it for them

[Eleanor]

gerry  and kate claim they dont read social media i dont believe that

I do.  Would you read for seven years of vile posts about you?

[Carana]

I do.  Would you read for seven years of vile posts about you?

Not just online posts, but also:

- campaigns with leaflets being distributed through letterboxes in their home village and in other places associated with them;

- photos of their house taken at night;

- posting photos of them and their children at a private outing;

- checking out and posting details regarding the children's routine;

- threats to cover Kate in paint at a book-signing;

- covering a wall in PdL asserting that they had killed Madeleine when the recent police search was there;

- threats to kidnap the twins;

- incitement to waterboard them;

- incitement to heckle anyone vaguely related to this case (including the grandparents);

- posting comments about their daily activities by those in the vicinity;

- launching numerous campaigns doomed to failure to add to their misery;

- posting the suggestion of dressing up as the dogs when they were running for charity;

- highly offensive photoshopped images;

- years of juxtaposed photos of what a grieving mother is "supposed" to look like, based on totally different situations in snapshots captured by the media;

- stalking and alluding to illicit activity on anyone remotely connected to the case, including people in PdL at the time who tried to help by supplying witness statements;

- the list goes on.

I've no doubt that I've missed quite a few. Perhaps that will do for starters?