| (http://static.guim.co.uk/sys-images/Technology/Pix/columnists/2012/6/8/1339155371192/Facebook-008.jpg) Source: The Guardian UK | A woman has won court backing to force Facebook to reveal the identities of cyberbullies who targeted her with a string of abusive messages on the website. Nicola Brookes was granted a high court order after receiving "vicious and depraved" abuse on Facebook after she posted a comment in support of the former The X Factor contestant Frankie Cocozza. The woman, from Brighton, was falsely branded a paedophile and drug dealer by anonymous Facebook users who set up a fake profile page on the website. Now Brookes plans to bring a private prosecution against at least four alleged internet trolls, after the high court said Facebook should reveal their identities. Facebook must now reveal the names, email and IP addresses of those behind the abusive messages, showing who they are and where they posted from. It is believed to be one of the first cases where an individual has successfully taken legal action against Facebook to reveal the identities of cyberbullies. It is understood Facebook has not yet received the court order known as a Norwich Pharmacal order but will comply when it does. The order was given backing at the high court on 30 May and must now be physically served on Facebook in the US, where the social network is based. Brookes, who suffers from Crohn's disease, said she now plans to bring "the strongest possible prosecution" against the internet trolls. "I want them exposed. They exposed me and they invaded my life," she added. "I didn't ask for it. They wanted a reaction from me and now they have got it." Brookes told how she was targeted with abusive comments within an hour of posting about Cocozza, after the young singer was evicted from The X Factor last year. "People were inciting hatred against me. They werent just targeting me, they were also dragging young girls into it as well," she said. Brookes took legal action after being frustrated by what she saw as a lack of interest from Surrey police. Rupinder Bains, a partner at the law firm Bains Cohen which is representing Brookes, said she would consider forcing internet service providers to hand over more information about the cyberbullies if details from Facebook do not prove useful. Bains told the Guardian that Facebook did not resist the legal challenge, but said the obstacles for revealing the identities of internet trolls could cost lives. "This [harassment] is a criminal offence and we have the legislation to protect us, but what's missing is the enforcement. This is where the system is failing us," she said. "In the States people have committed suicide over this and that's what will happen over here if things don't change." Bains suggested that Facebook and other social networks should charge users a small fee to join, so they are easier to identify in the event of a legal order. Facebook said in a statement: "There is no place for harassment on Facebook, but unfortunately a small minority of malicious individuals exist online, just as they do offline. We respect our legal obligations and work with law enforcement to ensure that such people are brought to justice." |
Looks like complete bullshit to me. Another reason why I don't have Facebook, there's no freedom anymore. What exactly did these four men do? Call her a drugdealer and some shit like that? I don't see why a court case is needed for that and I even moreso don't understand how that is classified as abuse.
Looks like complete bullshit to me. Another reason why I don't have Facebook, there's no freedom anymore. What exactly did these four men do? Call her a drugdealer and some shit like that? I don't see why a court case is needed for that and I even moreso don't understand how that is classified as abuse.
Looks like complete bullshit to me. Another reason why I don't have Facebook, there's no freedom anymore. What exactly did these four men do? Call her a drugdealer and some shit like that? I don't see why a court case is needed for that and I even moreso don't understand how that is classified as abuse.Well, according to the news people have committed suicide because of 'cyber-bullying'..
What's even more disturbing is the fact that your career might be at risk because of what some twat says on facebook about you.
In Canada and the US police departments already have this access so I always laugh when people try and tell me that they can say what they want on facebook without getting caught.
Well, according to the news people have committed suicide because of 'cyber-bullying'..People have also committed suicide due to their team losing at sports, or even for getting dumped. Those people have an underlying illness and if it wasn't cyberbullying pushing them over the edge, it'd be something completely different. The end result would be the same.
I should have the right to call someone an idiot, just as they reserve the same right to call me an insensitive fat f*ck. Of course there are going to be consequences due to those words, but none of the punishing should come from a big brother government.http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/insult (http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/insult)
free speech up in dis mufugga, insulting or not
I should have the right to call someone an idiot, just as they reserve the same right to call me an insensitive fat f*ck. Of course there are going to be consequences due to those words, but none of the punishing should come from a big brother government.
People have also committed suicide due to their team losing at sports, or even for getting dumped. Those people have an underlying illness and if it wasn't cyberbullying pushing them over the edge, it'd be something completely different. The end result would be the same.
Obviously you have no idea how to live if the civilised world. I don't know about you, but the majority of people enjoy living free of the threat of being assaulted, be it verbally or physically. Free Speech and Hate Speech are completely different things and if you can't understand the difference and enjoy being ignorant about either you might as well go and become an Anarchist, they seem to love using oppression as an excuse for their own violence. Just because you don't have the capacity to be a civilised person and live in the modern developed world, does not give you the ability to infringe the rights of other people.Free speech is for what you want to say. After all laws are only for others. ;)
Free speech is for what you want to say. After all laws are only for others. ;)
Obviously you have no idea how to live if the civilised world. I don't know about you, but the majority of people enjoy living free of the threat of being assaulted, be it verbally or physically. Free Speech and Hate Speech are completely different things and if you can't understand the difference and enjoy being ignorant about either you might as well go and become an Anarchist, they seem to love using oppression as an excuse for their own violence. Just because you don't have the capacity to be a civilised person and live in the modern developed world, does not give you the ability to infringe the rights of other people.
People should learn to cope with the possibility of getting verbally abused. Hell, even despite your nanny governments penalizing people from speaking their minds, incidents like that still happen, and most of them are hush-hush.
Again, as I implied, while it's not smart to go around randomly insulting/discriminating people, the government shouldn't pour their resources into stopping "bullying" or anything else of the like. Let the people deal with it themselves, unless you'd actually welcome a nation of sheep who rely on Big Brother for everything.
People should learn to cope with the possibility of getting verbally abused. Hell, even despite your nanny governments penalizing people from speaking their minds, incidents like that still happen, and most of them are hush-hush.Defamation is not a simple bullying, Oliver. it's an attempt to publicly destroy the other mans reputation and it is forbidden by most countries constitution, including Estonian. For example lets say you would go on to Estonian national television, get some air time and then would say something like: " Jubin is a bastard, born out of the incest of a brother and sister. On his spare time Jubin likes to first rape babies and then cut them into little pieces which he later eats with some ketchup."
Again, as I implied, while it's not smart to go around randomly insulting/discriminating people, the government shouldn't pour their resources into stopping "bullying" or anything else of the like. Let the people deal with it themselves, unless you'd actually welcome a nation of sheep who rely on Big Brother for everything.
What we have done, is walked into a trap of our own making. That is how we are made into "sheep". We empowered (elected, supported, etc) the very same people who manipulate us.
So what do you think? Should I just cope with this situation then, because of your free speech and all?
What we have done, is walked into a trap of our own making. That is how we are made into "sheep". We empowered (elected, supported, etc) the very same people who manipulate us.Talking about the government.. It ain't like all are the same.. But mine .. In Greece.. Oh man. Suits my country well.
Something as ridiculous as that would never be believed, thus the attempt at defamation would fall flat and the only person's reputation I'd hurt would be mine. You seem to be forgetting that people still have the ability to make up their own mind, and with accusations such as eating babies, they're sure as hell going to want to see some proof.You underestimate the human kind of believing in things that aren't true even without evidence. Take Michael Jackson case if you want an example from real life.
But at least I'd still have the right to say such a thing, however stupid it might be. That's the point of free speech.
Something as ridiculous as that would never be believed, thus the attempt at defamation would fall flat and the only person's reputation I'd hurt would be mine. You seem to be forgetting that people still have the ability to make up their own mind, and with accusations such as eating babies, they're sure as hell going to want to see some proof.Actually you are still missing the point of free speech.
But at least I'd still have the right to say such a thing, however stupid it might be. That's the point of free speech.
No, free speech does not mean saying any bullshit that is in your brain without anything being done about it. Free speech just means that you will not be stopped from talking bullshit.
What happens after that depends on whatever bullshit you were saying. If you broke a law, expect the government to take action. If you gave reason for a private lawsuit, expect lawyers to be knocking on your door. If it happens in a bar, expect to be punched on the nose.
That's exactly what I was saying - yes, you CAN say whatever you want, but you won't get away without any consequences. I simply disagreed with the government getting involved in it by throwing people in jail for a couple of "racist" comments. If the person getting insulted feels offended, they always have the right to sue the other person for compensation.
Criminal acts are dealt with by the government in a criminal court, not civil courts so that would not work.