back to article Social media flame wars to be illegal, says top Crown prosecutor

Social media users who engage in flame wars or retweet the doxing of others will be treated in the same way as those making fake bomb threats over social media, British prosecutors have announced. Released this morning, the Crown Prosecution Service (CPS)'s latest “Guidelines on prosecuting cases involving communications sent …

Silver badge
Stop

The establishment protects their own!

"social media crimes committed against “persons serving the public” more seriously than nasty words directed against their fellow members of the public. Similarly, “coordinated attacks by different people” should also attract greater prosecutorial attention."

So posting something that offends a public figure is a no-no, and God forbid that the person is such a public figure that multiple people post supporting messages that also offend that person. Eh, I guess its OK to kneecap public accountability, because it always has another knee.

1
0
Gold badge

"Doxing is the practice of posting home addresses, bank details and so on on public sites, usually to out an anonymous poster or to spur on a ridiculing mob."

Would that include publishing the names of companies that quite legally employ foreign staff, with the stated intention of drawing the attention of those who think it shouldn't be?

(In fairness to HMG, that particular piece of insanity does appear to have been squelched as soon as it came to the attention of the grown-ups in the civil service who actually know Jack Shit about the law.)

1
0

What kind of arse hole conflates flame war with aiding doxing.

1
0
Trollface

"“The internet's not an anonymous place where people can post without any consequences.”

As this thread has shown, anonymity is a double edged sword. Users, including myself, use it as a way to protect themselves from the seamier side of social media. Trolls use it to shield themselves from the consequences of their actions. Remove anonymity and you remove one tool from a troll's arse... er, arsenal but you also open users generally to all sorts of possible threats, not all of them troll based. This is just lazy and misinformed guidance from a body that is shown to be less than up to date with the thing they seek to inform on.

What kind of arse hole conflates flame war with aiding doxing.

The kind that doesn't have a clue of what they are on about. A bunch of old farts that probably wouldn't touch the Internet at all if they didn't have to, who use Twitter and Facebook only as a means of self advertisement.

You know.

Morons.

1
0

Freedom of speech gives us the right to behave like a vocal tw*t if we want to.

Clearly, our political leaders are experts at this.

0
0
Anonymous Coward

So what about the Welsh then?

Think about it.

0
0
Silver badge

"Don't be a cunt"

Teasing etc. should be fine - as should the odd argument.

Common sense tells us how we should be, and it can be summarised as "Don't be a cunt".

The problem is, you can't legislate something like this. It's too vague a definition, and is too affected by circumstance. Such laws (even if made with good intent) will be abused, and controlled by the best lawyer.

If you wouldn't do/say it in a pub without feer of being beaten up, don't do it online. This segways into my next point: Even ignoring what I wrote above, all the 'bad' things are covered by existing law anyway.

We don't need new laws just because "it's the internet" - surely the people in charge know this, so are only pushing them to please the "think of the children" brigade.

1
0

Flame war, motherfuckers

My initial position is that I will never get over your mother...I'll just have to get up and go round or hire a sherpa team like everyone else. Her baby photos were taken by satellite and she beeps when she reverses. Bleeds gravy etc.

Also, the most handsome of you look like a bulldog licking piss off a nettle.

Bring it. Bitches.

0
0
Silver badge

Re: Flame war, motherfuckers

Oh, fuck you, you fuckin' fuck.

0
0
Anonymous Coward

But but but...

Who will feed the trolls?

0
0
Silver badge

Re: But but but...

Who will feed the trolls?

Newbies, same as since before time immemorial. Despite being offered the ages old knowledge that "if you feed the trolls, you get to keep them".

Yes, I'm serious, and no, there is absolutely no way of legislating against this fact. Newbies will do what newbies will do. Thus demonstrating why, exactly, the entire concept of prosecuting this kind of drivel is daft.

No doubt I'll be nicked next time I set foot in Blighty for using the term "newbies".

1
1

CPS in trouble with itself

> "“Those who encourage others to commit a communications offence may be charged with encouraging an offence under the Serious Crime Act 2007,” warns the guidance."

So, by publishing this cunting, shitful, arsebrained, donkey-smegma guidance, you have actively encouraged me to commit a communications offence, as nobody with a sane, rational bone in their body could believe their tax dollars are going towards such fuckingly stupid bureautards making up muck-puckering bad "guidelines" to thoughtcrimes, without exploding in righteous, apoplectic rage.

As such, take yourselves directly to gaol, do not pass go, and do not fucking help your leperous, greedy self to $200.

Cunts.

0
0
Silver badge

"Serious Crime Act"? Really?

Is there a "Not Very Serious Crime Act"?

How about "Not Serious At All Crime Act"?

Or perhaps "Not A Crime, But We've Riled Up The Proles, So Let's Make It A Crime Act".

Just wondering.

0
0
Silver badge

Doxxing

Theresa May,

10 Downing Street,

London

What now, bitches...

1
0
Silver badge

Saunders has faced repeated and sustained criticism during her tenure as CPS chief, including over the bungled Operation Elveden, which wasted hundreds of millions of pounds hounding more than 60 tabloid journalists for publishing stories that embarrassed the Establishment. Just one was convicted of a criminal offence and is appealing.

Agenda much?

I really enjoy El Reg's tabloid-y terrible puns in headlines. But when you try to defend the phone hackers of NI, Trinity Mirror, etc., you're pissing into the wind I'm afraid. Private Eye is evidently a rather more reliable source of information on that scandal.

0
0
Black Helicopters

I see the Crown is again evincing a design to reduce its subjects under absolute despotism

Just use TOR networks and a 'murrican server - the 'murrican courts have held this sort of thing to be protected by the US Constitution.

Planned Parenthood of the Columbia/Willamette, Inc. v. American Coalition of Life Activists, 290 F.3d 1058 (9th Cir. 2002) (en banc), certiorari refused.

http://caselaw.findlaw.com/us-9th-circuit/1375479.html

NAACP v. Claiborne Hardware Co., 458 U.S. 886 (1982) https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/458/886/case.html

0
1

Page:

POST COMMENT House rules

Not a member of The Register? Create a new account here.

  • Enter your comment

  • Add an icon

Anonymous cowards cannot choose their icon

Forums

Biting the hand that feeds IT © 1998–2018