To hope the Irish online abuse law gets made in the uk

[vkocy]

By Christmas in Ireland it will be a criminal offense to stalk or harras someone online. This will protect the Irish instamums who have their life ripped to shreds on places like Mumsnet and tattle. Shouldn't this be made law in the UK also? Just because someone is on Instagram it doesn't mean you should be allowed to say whatever you want about them

@GoldfishParade

If they dont like people intruding on their private life they could always get a job that doesnt involve whoring out their private life

Worse than that, monetising their children, who cannot freely consent to be used like this. I think this should be made entirely illegal.

Making it uncomfortable to have accountability nfor your online actions is it??

No, misunderstanding what harassment and stalking actually are, using legislation passed in the wake of someone's suicide to censor others whose opinions you disagree with, more like.

You again?

You need to remember that those people you are courageously leaping to the defence of don't give a shit about you. Half of them are probably on the threads and sites you are pissed off about, joining in and in some cases, instigating the brouhaha in the first place about somebody they air kiss at events or 'shout out' on their pages.

Especially if you are also somebody who makes money out of online work. You're their competition and they would end you if they could.

I think it's not intended towards celebs actually. Just ordinary people who are mercilessly bullied and pursued online by one individual or a group perhaps - haven't had sight of the proposed legislation.

Newstalk is reputable to the poster who asked. Think BBC4 or something like that.

Making it uncomfortable to have accountability nfor your online actions is it?

Eh? No. Please feel free to search my history and point out where I've ever been remotely abusive.

You really imagine the people who would fear state control of speech most are online trolls? Giving vastly more power to the already powerful never works out well for the powerless.

You need to remember that those people you are courageously leaping to the defence of don't give a shit about you.

In fairness, given that OP is new to the site and only involved in threads defending the Radfords, then I imagine she probably does have skin in the game. Frankly if she's this invested in strangers that's probably sadder.

Laws to stop instagrammers feelings being hurt basically?

Fuck that. As someone up thread said cant stand the heat, get out of the kitchen

In fairness, given that OP is new to the site and only involved in threads defending the Radfords, then I imagine she probably does have skin in the game. Frankly if she's this invested in strangers that's probably sadder.

I just assumed this was the same poster who kept making threads about Susie (who I still have no idea who she is and don’t care enough to google to find out) last week. They’re very similar threads.

Saying mean comments online in a dedicated place, not sent to the subject, isn’t stalking nor harassment. Not saying it’s okay but still

Do you think that all day following and publishing videos of a child (so no consent) on a public platform without any safeguarding would count as a stalking of a minor?

And Thanks @SorryImKnew!

This is absolutely ridiculous and this kind of censorship should not be accepted.

So no, I don’t think it should be made law here.

Well, if it tackles those who send death/ rape threats to women then it's great. Doubt it'll cover those who criticise someone's parenting, that's fine I'm afraid. If you don't like that, you need to step away from SM.

@CitizenFame funnily enough this poster went onto a Susie thread earlier and called a poster a troll and had their post removed.

I think it should be looked at. The child who died was bullied and pursued resulting in her suicide. She was a teenager.
I have been bullied and pursued online. It was a forum much like this, but they went off onto a chat site (link provided on a thread on the original forum) and it was live. And they spent hours and hours, three of them, saying that I should just end my life. I did attempt suicide as a result. I emailed the administrators of the original site and they said as the exchange happened off their site, they were not responsible.
On their site, I was repeatedly bullied, told that I should just die, that my children should be taken off me etc. etc. There was absolutely no legislation 10 years ago. And a lot of passing the buck (or is it buck?). They were the bigwigs of the site and they went offsite at night to discuss just me and how much they hated me, how it would be better for my children if I just committed suicide etc.. Except one night I came across it and copied and pasted about a 4 hour convo between these 3 women and posted it on the original site. I rang the original site (they were using their usernames on the secondary site) and they said that they couldn't do anything as it happened off of their site (despite them maliciously targeting me every single time I posted on the original site). I think the original and secondary site have both died off (nothing to do with me). That sort of malicious targetted bullying is potentially life threatening. I think it's needed.

And I don't think it's going to affect anyone who expresses an opinion. It's more the 'I hope she'd die and do everyone a favour' 'Ye, hahahaha, stupid bitch' 'Lol, where is she going with that nose - I wouldn't go out in public lol' that is what they're looking at.
Will be interesting though sad to see the first case pursued and how it pans out, if the legislation passes through.

I personally hope that it's a deterrent and that the legislation is taught at schools and in news bulletins as a preventative measure rather than someone having to die for it to be proven useful.

Never found out whether it's passing the book or buck. Apologies for saying buck twice.

The posts suggesting individuals should kill themselves are deplorable and can’t be defended. I’m sorry that’s what you went through @SorryImKnew and that is the type of behaviour the Irish law is targeting (as it rightly should)

Posts saying “You’re claiming to provide a bespoke service but it’s a poor quality product” aren’t bullying or harassment, and aren’t the objective of the Irish law. Anyone who think they can provide a poor service and be immune from criticism should get back on their unicorn and ride on back to never never land The OP is misleading the conversation

You got it in once Loriesgar. I think unless you know what it's like to be specifically targeted, it's hard to possibly know what's the fucking difference. But there is a difference and it's really not hard to distinguish. If you say, 'The Kardashians are so annoying', I don't think that's similar to say a group of perhaps 3 MNers purposefully and consistently and persistently following you around the board to and such an extent that you end up suicidal or something. Or even one. I've noticed on here that one poster can have a lot of influence. I'd like to see it here too.

I think the critical word is 'persistent'.

Is that protection for people using their own name?
I get that.
But surely it'd waste everybody's time if bigguns had a row with t1tz

@SorryImKnew

Never found out whether it's passing the book or buck. Apologies for saying buck twice.

It's buck😁

Sorry what happened to you. Now that is stalking and harassment. Horrible

I would recommend that anyone who is a victim of persistent bullying on here, screenshots the messages before reporting them and HQ deleting them. In the event of a death, I'm sure Hq may be required to hand over original posts, but I have seen it even today where people are denying saying what was written in black and white as Hq have deleted posts. I have read the posts in contention in black and white yet there is absolute denial of their existence. The worst kind of offence is a liar. How can you argue with lies?

Any comments about appearance or someone's ability to parent are abusive and should rightfully be offlimits.

If someone chooses to live their life in the public eye, if they choose to monetise their appearance and their parenting they can wholly expect people to comment, for better or worse.

The legislation isn’t about protecting people to exploit every aspect of their own and their children’s lives.

[quote StealthNinjaMum]@CitizenFame funnily enough this poster went onto a Susie thread earlier and called a poster a troll and had their post removed.[/quote]
No that didn't happen. I asked for proof

Why is it a bad thing to ask for evidence and not beleive someone and the words they've typed out

@vkocy Well if you did go on a Susie thread and got a post removed and your opening post in this thread was about “people being mean on mumsnet and Tattle” and the two other threads last week had the exact same line in those OPs and was about the exact same thing you’re talking about in this thread, it’s likely that you’re the same person.

It doesn’t matter how many usernames you use. The general consensus in all of these threads are that YABU and these social influencers are not above criticism.

Why is it a bad thing to ask for evidence and not beleive someone and the words they've typed out

Implying that an OP is lying is not permitted on MN. Similarly implying that a poster is abusive just because they disagree with you is pretty rude- you forgot to reply to my request for proof of your assertion.

I think perhaps you are just used to a lower standard of discussion than the one found here on MN, OP. #bekind.