Re: El Reg
this does not in anyway condone anti-social or mob behaviour but as long people stay behind their keyboards, where's the problem?
Getting mobbed, is the problem. Getting doxxed and a sustained gang-bang over a period of time can melt people's heads. We're a social species and people -especially those of us who don't work in the IT industry- can be massively fucked up by constant disapproval from many sources. I've read accounts and it sounds fucking horrible.
There should be some legal protection there; but the "unless the sender thinks it's funny" clause makes this worse than a waste of time because every single one of the 20,000 people who have told "subject X" to kill themselves will claim that they thought it was funny, so it fucks any effectiveness that it could have had whilst simultaneously creating the conditions for it to bugger up the lives of people who it was never intended for. I mean seriously:
Communications which may constitute threats of violence to the person or damage to property.
*May*? There seems to be a lack of context, to this and the rest of it. I'm going to come round to the house of each Reg commentard and batter you to death with my todger. And then damage some property, just to be thorough. Hands up anyone who feels threatened.
Communications which specifically target an individual or individuals and which may constitute harassment or stalking, controlling or coercive behaviour, disclosing private sexual images without consent, an offence under the Sexual Offences Act 2003, blackmail or another offence.
Taking as individuals the El Reg commentardariat, I'm watching you. All of you. In the shower. And wake up screaming, you fat bastards, with wisps of harpooning dreams and a compelling urge to hire a crane to drag you back into the sea.
Communications which may amount to a breach of a court order or a statutory prohibition. This can include:
Juror misconduct offences under the Juries Act 1974 [sections 20A-G];
Contempts under the Contempt of Court Act 1981;
An offence under section 5 of the Sexual Offences (Amendment) Act 1992;
Breaches of a restraining order; or
Breaches of bail.
All charging decisions (whether positive or negative) is cases involving allegations under the Juries Act 1974 must be referred to the Director's Legal Advisor (DLA) for approval (see: section entitled Handling Arrangements at the end of this guidance as to how this should be done). A decision to prosecute such an offence will thereafter require the consent of the Attorney General.
Offences under the Contempt of Court Act 1981 or section 5 of the Sexual Offences (Amendment) Act 1992 also require the consent of the Attorney General and may be sent to the DLA for his consideration if assistance is required.
Got nothing for this, apart from a great deal of contempt for the court this bollocks issued from. I am an official criminal for telling a traffic warden to fuck off so I suppose I can also instruct the court to go fuck themselves, if that counts.
Communications which do not fall into any of the categories above fall to be considered separately i.e. those which may be considered grossly offensive, indecent, obscene or false.
Well, you motherfucking, cocksucking sons of syphalytic whore's dog's scabby ringworm; this is a really great piece of legislation. The last bit was false, just to make things clear...the legislation sucks raw donkey prong.