Internet trolling has been a wide issue upon the internet since the beginning. Over more recent years trolling has become more and more intense and affects thousands of people on a daily basis. An Internet troll is explained as someone who tries to start arguments or upset people by posting inflammatory messages in order to provoke the receiver into an emotional response. Trolling first started off in the early days of the internet where it was seen to be humorous initially, however, as years have gone by the once light hearted trolling has developed into nasty hatred which has affected millions across the internet. According to the Guardian, who surveyed over 1,500 teenagers between the ages of 13-18 last year, one in four teenagers were victims of online internet trolling in 2015. Not only that but 24% of victims were targeted due to their gender, sexual orientation, race, religion, disability or transgender identity.(1) This for young teens can be extremely harmful on their mentality and can lead to other problems in their lives. Trolling can take place anywhere on the internet but has become more apparent on social media and forums. It allows people to send harmful and hate driven comments whilst posing as just another anonymous online internet user. Chief executive of an anti-bullying charity Liam Hackett believes that many people feel dis-empowered offline and the fact that they can stay anonymous has led to increased incidents of trolls. It is important to understand why people troll to try and put a stop at the source of the problem but also not to disengage from the fact that it is extremely harmful and the abusive messages sent by trolls can have devastating effects on the lives of people who they may not even know.
As trolling is developing so fast and having an effect on the lives of many, not only in the United Kingdom but the world, it is also important to know that the Government is doing everything they can to try to clamp down on internet trolling with more and more arrests made each year. According to Sky News, in 2014 155 people were jailed for sending messages which were highly offensive, indecent or menacing behaviour, and over 1200 convicted for trolling which was an eightfold increase from the previous year.(2) Although there is no individual law which deals against offenders specifically, there are several pieces of legislation in which trolls can be convicted under.
There are four pieces of legislation; Malicious Communications Act 1988, Protection from Harassment Act 1997, Communications Act 2003 and the Public Order Act 1986. Although there is many legislation which can convict internet trolls there is an argument that the acts overlap each other and it is not clear which act deals with trolls specifically. Therefore it is necessary to examine and evaluate each act and their effectiveness towards dealing with hate crime on the internet.
Malicious Communications Act 1988
The Malicious Communications Act was introduced in 1988 across England and Wales. The Act was originally set out initially to cover physical methods in the forms of letter, but has been adapted over time with the introduction of the internet. Section 1 of the act deals with ‘Offence of sending letters etc. with intent to cause distress or anxiety’ it states:
“(1)Any person who sends to another person—
(a)a letter, electronic communication or article of any description which conveys—
(i)a message which is indecent or grossly offensive;
(ii)a threat; or
(iii)information which is false and known or believed to be false by the sender; or
(b)any(article or electronic communication) which is, in whole or part, of an indecent or grossly offensive nature,
is guilty of an offence if his purpose, or one of his purposes, in sending it is that it should, so far as falling within paragraph (a) or (b) above, cause distress or anxiety to the recipient or to any other person to whom he intends that it or its contents or nature should be communicated.
(2)A person is not guilty of an offence by virtue of subsection (1)(a)(ii) above if he shows—
(a)that the threat was used to reinforce a demand (made by him on reasonable grounds); and
(b)that he believed (, and had reasonable grounds for believing,) that the use of the threat was a proper means of reinforcing the demand.
((2A)In this section “ electronic communication ” includes—
( a )any oral or other communication by means of (an electronic communications network) (c. 12)); and
(b)any communication (however sent) that is in electronic form.)
(3)In this section references to sending include references to delivering (or transmitting) and to causing to be sent (, delivered or transmitted) and “sender” shall be construed accordingly.
( (4)A person guilty of an offence under this section is liable—
(a)on conviction on indictment to imprisonment for a term not exceeding two years or a fine (or both);
(b)on summary conviction to imprisonment for a term not exceeding 12 months or a fine (or both).
(5)In relation to an offence committed before section 154(1) of the Criminal Justice Act 2003 comes into force, the reference in subsection (4)(b) to 12 months is to be read as a reference to six months.
(6)In relation to an offence committed before section 85 of the Legal Aid Sentencing and Punishment of Offenders Act 2012 comes into force, the reference in subsection (4)(b) to a fine is to be read as a reference to a fine not exceeding the statutory maximum.)” (3)
To summarise the act more simply, you are guilty under this if you send messages which are grossly offensive, a threat or false accusations to try to cause stress and or anxiety towards the recipient. This can be done electronically, by letter or any other form which can convey the messages. If an internet troll is guilty under these offences they can be imprisoned for up to two years and or receive a fine. However, there is often uncertainty deciding what is ‘grossly offensive’. One of the earliest convictions upon internet trolls was under the Malicious Communications Act. A man named Sean Duffy, aged 25 from Reading, was convicted and sentenced to 18 weeks in prison as well as being banned from social networking for five years. Duffy admitted to posting images online making a mockery and taunting the deaths of four children including a young suicide victim, 15, Natasha MacBryde. Duffy also posted, after calling Natasha a “spoiled little ****”, a chilling video named ‘Tasha The Tank Engine’ in a disgusting taunt after Natasha was found dead on railway tracks near her home. (4) This was one of the first attempts at trying to crackdown on internet trolling in the UK and furthermore has helped be used as an example for further convictions in the future. Another example of internet trolling under the act came in 2012 during the Olympic Games. After diver Tom Daley finished fourth in the men’s synchronised platform diving, twitter user Reece Messer, 17, tweeted Tom saying “You let your dad down I hope you know that” after the divers dad died a year before following a long battle with cancer. The message was clearly sent to cause emotional distress and this was spotted by the police who later arrested him and questioned him. The teenager was given a formal warning for trolling which many people believe he got away lightly possibly due to his later tweets apologising to the diver for his remarks. (5)
Public Order Act 1986
The Public Order Act was introduced in 1986 initially creating more updated public order laws so that they could remove and replace common law offences. One of the new offences that was added is Section 4A which is known as ‘Intentional harassment, alarm or distress’. This section reads:
“(1)A person is guilty of an offence if, with intent to cause a person harassment, alarm or distress, he—
(a)uses threatening, abusive or insulting words or behaviour, or disorderly behaviour, or
(b)displays any writing, sign or other visible representation which is threatening, abusive or insulting,
thereby causing that or another person harassment, alarm or distress.
(2)An offence under this section may be committed in a public or a private place, except that no offence is committed where the words or behaviour are used, or the writing, sign or other visible representation is displayed, by a person inside a dwelling and the person who is harassed, alarmed or distressed is also inside that or another dwelling.
(3)It is a defence for the accused to prove—
(a)that he was inside a dwelling and had no reason to believe that the words or behaviour used, or the writing, sign or other visible representation displayed, would be heard or seen by a person outside that or any other dwelling, or
(b)that his conduct was reasonable.
(5)A person guilty of an offence under this section is liable on summary conviction to imprisonment for a term not exceeding 6 months or a fine not exceeding level 5 on the standard scale or both.“(6)
To summarise this, if a person is abusive, threatening, violent, or distressing towards one whether that be in public or private state then they could be liable to conviction for their actions. If found guilty of actions under this section then they may be sentenced to prison for up to six months and or fined up to a maximum of £5000. One of the most known cases regarding internet trolling was convicted under this act. Student Liam Stacey,21, from South Wales sent out malicious, racist and vile tweets towards ex footballer Fabrice Muamba after he suffered a cardiac arrest on the pitch during a game against Tottenham Hotspurs in March of 2012. Stacey initially tweeted “LOL, F*** Muamba. He’s dead!!! #haha”, however extended his racist abuse further when he was confronted by a load of anonymous twitter users for his remarks. Some of the responses he tweeted were “@username go suck muamba’s dead **** then you n***g c***!#muambasdead”, “@username I aint your friend **** … go pick some cotton!”. Initially upon arrest Stacey tried to blame that his account was hacked and he did not publish the tweets himself however he later pleaded guilty under section 4a of the act and was sentenced to prison for 56 days.(7) This sentence by the courts show that they will not tolerate racist, abusive, hatred upon the internet and set a marker in stone for the consequences of internet trolling.
The Protection from Harassment Act 1997
The Protection from Harassment Act is another act which can deal with internet trolls, although it has not been used as widely or as effectively as other acts to convict trolls it still can be used as a way to clamp down on internet trolling. The Act was introduced in 1997 across England and Wales. Section 1A which is about ‘Prohibition of harassment’ states:
“ (1)A person must not pursue a course of conduct—
(a)which amounts to harassment of another, and
(b)which he knows or ought to know amounts to harassment of the other.
(1A)A person must not pursue a course of conduct —
(a)which involves harassment of two or more persons, and
(b)which he knows or ought to know involves harassment of those persons, and
(c)by which he intends to persuade any person (whether or not one of those mentioned above)—
(i)not to do something that he is entitled or required to do, or
(ii)to do something that he is not under any obligation to do.
(2)For the purposes of this section (or section 2A(2)(c)), the person whose course of conduct is in question ought to know that it amounts to (or involves) harassment of another if a reasonable person in possession of the same information would think the course of conduct amounted to harassment of the other.
A person who pursues a course of conduct in breach of [section 1(1) or (1A)] is guilty of an offence.
A person guilty of an offence under this section is liable on summary conviction to imprisonment for a term not exceeding six months, or a fine not exceeding level 5 on the standard scale, or both. “(8)
In summary of this section, you can be convicted and imprisoned for harassment of someone or multiple people. Jail sentence cannot exceed six months and there is a possibility of being fined up to £5000 as well. Although there has been little convictions in terms of this act in relation to online trolling, there has been times where there has been potential for conviction. It has been said that the act might have been used to prosecute Brenda Leyland a woman who sent out malicious tweets to the parents of Madeleine McCann regarding the disappearance of her daughter. However, after a Sky News interview it was found that Brenda had committed suicide and as a result all potential proceedings were dropped. (9) Another unsuccessful case in regards to the Protection from Harassment Act has actually ended up improving the clamp down on trolls. In June 2012, Nicola Brookes tweeted her support for former X Factor member Frankie Cocozza however, was suddenly subject to vicious attack from online users. The harassment got so out of hand that fake profiles were set up in Nicola’s name and they were posting views as if they were coming from Nicola herself. As well as personal photos of her daughters and her address was also leaked. Nicola tried to act against 7 of these trolls under the Protection From Harassment Act 1997 although was unsuccessful as Facebook said they could not release the names of the creators of the profiles. This led to campaigns from Nicola Brookes to tackle online trolls which has resulted in making it easier and cheaper for website owners to reveal the anonymous trolls in an attempt to increase the amount to trolling convictions.
Communications Act 2003
The Communications Act was introduced in 2003 across the whole of the UK. The most important section of the act which directly relates to dealing with internet trolls is section 127 of the act. Section 127 is titled ‘Improper use of public electronic communications network.’ and reads:
“1)A person is guilty of an offence if he—
(a)sends by means of a public electronic communications network a message or other matter that is grossly offensive or of an indecent, obscene or menacing character; or
(b)causes any such message or matter to be so sent.
(2)A person is guilty of an offence if, for the purpose of causing annoyance, inconvenience or needless anxiety to another, he—
(a)sends by means of a public electronic communications network, a message that he knows to be false,
(b)causes such a message to be sent; or
(c)persistently makes use of a public electronic communications network.
(3)A person guilty of an offence under this section shall be liable, on summary conviction, to imprisonment for a term not exceeding six months or to a fine not exceeding level 5 on the standard scale, or to both.
(4)Subsections (1) and (2) do not apply to anything done in the course of providing a programme service (within the meaning of the Broadcasting Act 1990 (c. 42)).“(10)
In summary of the act, you are guilty of the offence if you send menacing, obscene, indecent messages through a public communication network such as on the internet or through mobile phones or if you intend to cause an inconvenience and annoyance towards the receiver of the abuse. If guilty under the act you may be imprisoned for up to six months and or may also receive a fine up to the sum of £5000- the same punishment for the 3rd time out of the acts mentioned. One of the earliest convictions for internet trolls fell under this act. Back in 2010, a man named Colm Coss from Manchester, posted disgusting messages on memorial pages set up on Facebook. Coss targeted pages relating to the death of Jade Goody, former Big Brother star, and a young boy who was killed by a dog, John Paul Massey. Some of the posts made by Coss claimed that ‘he had sex with the victims bodies’. The judge deemed his behaviour as shocking and sentenced him to 18 weeks in prison.(11) Another example where the Act was used to prosecute was back in 2010. Paul Chambers , from Northern Ireland, posted a tweet after Robin Hood airport was shut due to the bad weather, he tweeted: ” Crap! Robin Hood airport is closed. You’ve got a week and a bit to get your shit together otherwise I’m blowing the airport sky high!!” As a result of this tweet Paul Chambers was arrested and convicted for sending ‘menacing electronic communication’ under the 2003 Act and was ordered to pay £600 in costs and a £375 fine. He also lost his job as consequence of this. However, after a strongly backed campaign even including comedians such as Al Murray and Steven Fry, his conviction was quashed at the London High Court as it was seen to be not menacing, was not terrorist linked as his profile was not anonymous and was meant to be taken as a joke.(12) This had sparked some debate and has certainly caused difficulties in convicting trolls as there are many different opinions in relation to how messages are taken. There is a fine line between what is meant to be a joke and what is classed as offensive which has proved difficult to decide where the trolls lie. Due to the varying differences in opinions it has sparked some debate in regard to different cases.
In conclusion, online internet trolling has developed from a once humorous idea but now to vicious, abusive, racist behaviour which the UK Government has taken a firm stand against. The numerous cases convicting trolls show that the Government want to do everything in their power to try and reduce the amount of trolling upon the internet. The recent addition to the Defamation Bill makes it easier for websites to reveal anonymous trolls which will also further try to crack down on trolling culture. One issue that many argue hinders the prosecution of trolls is the fact that many pieces of the legislation which can convict guilty people overlap each other instead of there being one clear piece of legislation which deals with trolling as a whole. Many believe that if there was just one specific legislation then there would be far more convictions as it is easier to prosecute them instead of having to decide under which piece of legislation. Currently the punishments under 3 out of the 4 acts mentioned is a maximum of 6 month imprisonment and or up to a £5000 fine but many argue that this is not enough. There is the argument that tougher longer punishments would then warn current trolls away from their behaviour if they see other convictions of a long imprisonment. Another potential solution to stop more trolling in the future would be to try and implement more education schemes which would teach children and young teenagers the dangers of the internet and to teach them that it is not acceptable. Education schemes would be effective to a certain extent but only in the long term but it would also be a step in the right direction from the Government. There are also currently small scale initiatives happening across the UK one example being the ‘Zero Trollerance’ campaign by the group The Peng Collective. The campaign set up twitter bots to target abusive tweets and the trolls were then offered a ‘self-help programme’ to try and stop their trolling habits. Small initiatives like this might not seem very effective overall but in reality they are doing their bit to help nip trolling in the bud.
Even if the UK Government introduced a specific legislation that dealt with trolls in general with tougher consequences and implemented many different schemes and initiatives in an attempt to stop trolling as a whole, personally I do not think it would be enough. The main issue with trying to remove trolling is the fact that there are so many people that use the internet and troll people and for the Government to invest all their efforts into trying to stop it, it would simply not be practical. There are hundreds of millions of internet users out there that it wouldn’t be possible to cut trolling out completely. Unfortunately, society has changed massively on the internet from what it used to be and trolling almost seems normal these days which is just not acceptable. Trolling will never be cut out completely but it is important that there are more prosecutions to try to some extent to end internet trolling.
Bibliography
(1) -‘Internet trolling: quarter of teenagers suffered online abuse last year’- Posted 09/09/2016 https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2016/feb/09/internet-trolling-teenagers-online-abuse-hate-cyberbullying (Accessed on 26/11/16)
(2) – ‘ Internet ‘Trolling’ Sees 150 People Jailed’ – Posted 24/05/15 http://news.sky.com/story/internet-trolling-sees-150-people-jailed-10358328 (Accessed on 26/11/16)
(3) – ‘Malicious Communications Act 1988’ http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1988/27/section/1 (Accessed on 26/11/16)
(4) – ‘ Who, what, why: What laws currently cover trolling?’ – Posted on 20/10/14 http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/blogs-magazine-monitor-29686865 (Accessed on 27/11/16)
(4) – ‘ The Legal Aspects Of The Conviction of Sean Duffy At Reading Magistrates’ Court’ – Posted on 13/09/11 https://internetlawexpert.co.uk/2011/09/13/the-legal-aspects-of-the-conviction-of-sean-duffy-at-reading-magistrates-court/ (Accessed on 27/11/16)
(5) – ‘ Tom Daley Twitter ‘troll’ to be investigated by police’ – Posted on 31/07/12 http://www.bbc.co.uk/newsbeat/article/19059085/tom-daley-twitter-troll-to-be-investigated-by-police (Accessed on 28/11/16)
(6)- ‘Public Order Act 1986′ http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1986/64 (Accessed on 28/11/16)
(7) – ‘Student jailed for racist Fabrice Muamba tweets’ – Posted on 27/03/12 https://www.theguardian.com/uk/2012/mar/27/student-jailed-fabrice-muamba-tweets (Accessed on 28/11/16)
(8) – ‘Protection from Harassment Act 1997′ http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1997/40/crossheading/england-and-wales?view=extent (Accessed on 29/11/16)
(9) – ‘ McCann ‘Twitter Troll’ Brenda Leyland ‘Killed Herself’ ‘ http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-leicestershire-31982088 – Posted on 20/03/15 (Accessed on 29/11/16)
(10) – ‘Communications Act 2003′ http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2003/21/section/127?view=extent (Accessed on 29/11/16)
(11) – ‘ Jade Goody website ‘troll’ from Manchester jailed’ – Posted 29/10/10 http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-manchester-11650593 (Accessed on 30/11/16)
(12) – ‘ Robin Hood Airport tweet bomb joke man wins case ‘ – Posted 27/07/12 http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-19009344 (Accessed on 30/11/16)
(12) – ‘ Twitter joke trial: Paul Chambers wins high court appeal against conviction’ – Posted 27/07/12 https://www.theguardian.com/law/2012/jul/27/twitter-joke-trial-high-court (Accessed on 30/11/16)
‘What is the best way to stop internet trolls?’ – Posted 21/03/16 http://www.bbc.com/future/story/20160318-what-is-the-best-way-to-stop-internet-trolls (Accessed on 30/11/16)
Cases
- -V- Sean Duffy 2011 Reading Magistrates Court
- -V- Liam Stacey 2012 Swansea Crown Court
- -V- Colm Coss 2010 Manchester Magistrates Court
- Chambers V DPP 2012 HC London
Trolling in the Online Environment 