Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature currently requires accessing the site using the built-in Safari browser.
Apparently, the bravest Brits died in WWII.Websites to be forced to identify trolls under new measures
Websites will soon be forced to identify people who have posted defamatory messages online.
New government proposals say victims have a right to know who is behind malicious messages without the need for costly legal battles.
The powers will be balanced by measures to prevent false claims in order to get material removed.
But privacy advocates are worried websites might end up divulging user details in a wider range of cases.
Last week, a British woman won a court order forcing Facebook to identify users who had harassed her.
Nicola Brookes had been falsely branded a paedophile and drug dealer by users - known as trolls - on Facebook.
Facebook, which did not contest the order, will now reveal the IP addresses of people who had abused her so she can prosecute them.
The new powers, to be added to the Defamation Bill, would make this process far less time-consuming and costly, the government said.
Complying with requests would afford the website greater protection from being sued in the event of a defamation claim.
The new rules would apply to all websites - regardless of where they are hosted - but the claimant would need to be able to show that the UK was the right place to bring the action.
End to 'scurrilous rumour'
Currently, in legal terms, every website "hit" - visit - on a defamatory article can be counted as a separate offence.
This means many websites remove articles as soon as a defamation claim is made - either rightly or wrongly.
"Website operators are in principle liable as publishers for everything that appears on their sites, even though the content is often determined by users," said Justice Secretary Ken Clarke.
"But most operators are not in a position to know whether the material posted is defamatory or not and very often - faced with a complaint - they will immediately remove material.
"Our proposed approach will mean that website operators have a defence against libel as long as they identify the authors of allegedly defamatory material when requested to do so by a complainant."
Mr Clarke said the measures would mean an end to "scurrilous rumour and allegation" being posted online without fear of adequate punishment.
"The government wants a libel regime for the internet that makes it possible for people to protect their reputations effectively but also ensures that information online can't be easily censored by casual threats of litigation against website operators.
"It will be very important to ensure that these measures do not inadvertently expose genuine whistleblowers, and we are committed to getting the detail right to minimise this risk."
BBC News - Websites to be forced to identify trolls under new measures
Well done Ms Brookes.
But it will of course get worse before it gets better.
Trolling abuse got worse for victim Nicola Brookes after Facebook victory - Telegraph
Well, I could also state how it sucks for privacy and freedom on the internet, just because some crybaby got upset when someone called them names.
Your position is that you should be able to say anything about anyone with impunity? Irrespective of whether it's true? Irrespective of whether your intent is malicious? Irrespective or whether you know the intent will be damaging, and even intend it to be damaging?
Your position is that you should be able to say anything about anyone with impunity? Irrespective of whether it's true? Irrespective of whether your intent is malicious? Irrespective or whether you know the intent will be damaging, and even intend it to be damaging?
Damaging? In what way?
Is an accusation on the internet admissable in court?
Is an accusation on the internet going to get you fired?
Is an accusation on the internet going to lead to divorce?
You should be able to say it, and others have the right to shun you.
Let's say there is some dopey bitch on the internet.
Let's say her name is -- I dunno -- pick one -- Rawi.
Let's say some other person on the interwebs with a username of Fryability insults Rawi.
Can Rawi REALLY claim her reputation was damaged?
How? Nobody knows who the fuck Rawi is in the real world.
At most, her allegedly good name on one interwebz message board has been cast into SOME shadow of doubt.
The whining here is not just pathetic, it is absurd.
Rawi is a crybaby. Nener neener. Oh NO! What has I done? NOW my username could get all sued and shit!
Apparently, the bravest Brits died in WWII.Websites to be forced to identify trolls under new measures
Websites will soon be forced to identify people who have posted defamatory messages online.
New government proposals say victims have a right to know who is behind malicious messages without the need for costly legal battles.
The powers will be balanced by measures to prevent false claims in order to get material removed.
But privacy advocates are worried websites might end up divulging user details in a wider range of cases.
Last week, a British woman won a court order forcing Facebook to identify users who had harassed her.
Nicola Brookes had been falsely branded a paedophile and drug dealer by users - known as trolls - on Facebook.
Facebook, which did not contest the order, will now reveal the IP addresses of people who had abused her so she can prosecute them.
The new powers, to be added to the Defamation Bill, would make this process far less time-consuming and costly, the government said.
Complying with requests would afford the website greater protection from being sued in the event of a defamation claim.
The new rules would apply to all websites - regardless of where they are hosted - but the claimant would need to be able to show that the UK was the right place to bring the action.
End to 'scurrilous rumour'
Currently, in legal terms, every website "hit" - visit - on a defamatory article can be counted as a separate offence.
This means many websites remove articles as soon as a defamation claim is made - either rightly or wrongly.
"Website operators are in principle liable as publishers for everything that appears on their sites, even though the content is often determined by users," said Justice Secretary Ken Clarke.
"But most operators are not in a position to know whether the material posted is defamatory or not and very often - faced with a complaint - they will immediately remove material.
"Our proposed approach will mean that website operators have a defence against libel as long as they identify the authors of allegedly defamatory material when requested to do so by a complainant."
Mr Clarke said the measures would mean an end to "scurrilous rumour and allegation" being posted online without fear of adequate punishment.
"The government wants a libel regime for the internet that makes it possible for people to protect their reputations effectively but also ensures that information online can't be easily censored by casual threats of litigation against website operators.
"It will be very important to ensure that these measures do not inadvertently expose genuine whistleblowers, and we are committed to getting the detail right to minimise this risk."
BBC News - Websites to be forced to identify trolls under new measures
Well done Ms Brookes.
But it will of course get worse before it gets better.
Trolling abuse got worse for victim Nicola Brookes after Facebook victory - Telegraph
How far the Empire has fallen.
Well, I could also state how it sucks for privacy and freedom on the internet, just because some crybaby got upset when someone called them names.
Your position is that you should be able to say anything about anyone with impunity? Irrespective of whether it's true? Irrespective of whether your intent is malicious? Irrespective or whether you know the intent will be damaging, and even intend it to be damaging?
See the SCOTUS ruling on "Stolen Valor".
ahh
The Constitution is going to take another hit.
don'tcha just love whiny fucking crybabies and the life is not fair crowd.
You are an idiot. The Constitution gaurantees "privacy"...not anonymity.
ahh
The Constitution is going to take another hit.
don'tcha just love whiny fucking crybabies and the life is not fair crowd.
This may shock you... but the rest of the world is not covered by the US Constitution.
ahh
The Constitution is going to take another hit.
don'tcha just love whiny fucking crybabies and the life is not fair crowd.
Not particularly. But I'll take them over the phony-tough, hide behind an IP address crowd seven days out of seven.
If you've got something to say, stand up and say it, let people know what your opinion is, and don't bitch about having to take responsibility for it.
"Boo-hoo, I wanna say shit about people but I don't want anyone to know it was me that said it." Don'tcha just love whiny fucking crybabies and the life is not fair crowd.
Your position is that you should be able to say anything about anyone with impunity? Irrespective of whether it's true? Irrespective of whether your intent is malicious? Irrespective or whether you know the intent will be damaging, and even intend it to be damaging?
See the SCOTUS ruling on "Stolen Valor".
Post a link and I'll read it.
Who gets to decide what a troll is?
The Chief Justice, of course.
Internet troll identities to be revealed
Bout time...
ahh
The Constitution is going to take another hit.
don'tcha just love whiny fucking crybabies and the life is not fair crowd.
Not particularly. But I'll take them over the phony-tough, hide behind an IP address crowd seven days out of seven.
If you've got something to say, stand up and say it, let people know what your opinion is, and don't bitch about having to take responsibility for it.
"Boo-hoo, I wanna say shit about people but I don't want anyone to know it was me that said it." Don'tcha just love whiny fucking crybabies and the life is not fair crowd.
One, come up with your own schtick.
Two, who gives a fuck what people on the internet say?
every single last site I've seen has an ignore function. If a meanies being mean, ignore them and they are talking to themselves.
See the SCOTUS ruling on "Stolen Valor".
Post a link and I'll read it.
Supreme Court ruling on Stolen Valor Act rests on 1st Amendment - latimes.com
The U.S. Supreme Court's decision Thursday striking down the Stolen Valor Act says the 1st Amendment "protects the speech we detest as well as the speech we embrace," according to Justice Anthony M. Kennedy.
By a 6-3 decision, the high court said the right to lie about medals and military service, while "contemptible" and worthy of outrage and ridicule, is protected by the 1st Amendment.
To allow the government to outlaw certain speech because it is based on false statements would invite a Ministry of Truth as written about by George Orwell in his novel "1984" about totalitarianism, Kennedy said.
But go to the corner and say that some ******* need killing, and it's off to jail.
Not particularly. But I'll take them over the phony-tough, hide behind an IP address crowd seven days out of seven.
If you've got something to say, stand up and say it, let people know what your opinion is, and don't bitch about having to take responsibility for it.
"Boo-hoo, I wanna say shit about people but I don't want anyone to know it was me that said it." Don'tcha just love whiny fucking crybabies and the life is not fair crowd.
One, come up with your own schtick.
Two, who gives a fuck what people on the internet say?
every single last site I've seen has an ignore function. If a meanies being mean, ignore them and they are talking to themselves.
One, you're clearly very proud of your schtick, but don't let the fact that I quoted it go to your head.
Two, depends what they say, where they say it, and how it impacts you. Remember, I'm referring specifically to cases like the one mentioned in the OP, not the fatuous example Ravi brought up.
The fact that you have the ability to ignore a comment when it is made is irrelevant within that context.
If someone develops a fake Facebook page for you, takes your personal pictures in order add credibility to their attempts to deliberately misrepresent you, and then generates material specifically with the intent of giving anyone who sees the profile the impression that you (not your avatar, not your "screen name", you personally) are a vie human being, a pedophile and a drug dealer, victims should have the ability to defend their character in public and reveal that such posts were malicious and untrue. Furthermore they should have the ability to prosecute those who have put them in the position of having to defend themselves from this sort of behavior.
Everyone knows that social media profiling is now used by banks (to determine creditworthiness) and employers (to assess character), among other things. Are you seriously saying that the damage done to a person's character by attacks of this nature is something people just need to grow thicker skin about and that it has no real impact on their lives? Are you seriously saying that people should have the ability to behave like this and still have the right to expect that their privacy will be respected?
Damaging? In what way?
Is an accusation on the internet admissable in court?
Is an accusation on the internet going to get you fired?
Is an accusation on the internet going to lead to divorce?
You should be able to say it, and others have the right to shun you.
Let's say there is some dopey bitch on the internet.
Let's say her name is -- I dunno -- pick one -- Rawi.
Let's say some other person on the interwebs with a username of Fryability insults Rawi.
Can Rawi REALLY claim her reputation was damaged?
How? Nobody knows who the fuck Rawi is in the real world.
At most, her allegedly good name on one interwebz message board has been cast into SOME shadow of doubt.
The whining here is not just pathetic, it is absurd.
Rawi is a crybaby. Nener neener. Oh NO! What has I done? NOW my username could get all sued and shit!
Precisely the issue.
You aren't making sense. You answered my post as if I got the information wrong and liarbility's as if he got the information right.
Very funny. I started a thread on this a couple weeks ago in which a Republican politician was suing anonymous posters for talking trash about her on the internet.ahh
The Constitution is going to take another hit.
don'tcha just love whiny fucking crybabies and the life is not fair crowd.
This may shock you... but the rest of the world is not covered by the US Constitution.
if it happens over there, the left will demand it here.
You know this as well as I do.
And since the internet is international....
Well, I could also state how it sucks for privacy and freedom on the internet, just because some crybaby got upset when someone called them names.
Your position is that you should be able to say anything about anyone with impunity? Irrespective of whether it's true? Irrespective of whether your intent is malicious? Irrespective or whether you know the intent will be damaging, and even intend it to be damaging?
See the SCOTUS ruling on "Stolen Valor".
Internet troll identities to be revealed
Bout time...
Yep. About the only people here that will be safe are on Huggy's List. The rest are toast. Huggy, You better fuel up your boat.
ok, now it seems you're talking about ID theft and slander.
That's not being a troll.
Internet troll identities to be revealed
Bout time...
Yep. About the only people here that will be safe are on Huggy's List. The rest are toast. Huggy, You better fuel up your boat.
But that's just me.. That's the way I talk to people in real life if they rub me the wrong way. Fortunately I have found a little nitch where I can get away with it. I don't talk shit to everyone I know.. Just like everyone.. I have people in my life that I treasure and they get treated as such. 
