Interesting... The U.S. does have similar laws, but it's unclear how well they're enforced. And of course, each state has different statutes.
http://www.ncsl.org/research/telecommunications-and-information-technology/cyberstalking-and-cyberharassment-laws.aspx Maia On Sat, Jan 31, 2015 at 7:00 AM, <[email protected]> wrote: > > > ---------------------------------------------------------------------- > > Message: 1 > Date: Fri, 30 Jan 2015 12:46:29 +0000 > From: Marie Earley <[email protected]> > To: Gender Gap <[email protected]> > Subject: Re: [Gendergap] press coverage of Gamergate arbcom case > Message-ID: <[email protected]> > Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" > > There is something I thought I should mention as a UK member of this list. > > Hate speech (including online) is illegal in the UK. > > When the Bank of England announced that Elizabeth Fry would be dropped > from the new £5 notes and replaced with Winston Churchill, it meant that > there would be no women on sterling bank notes (apart from the Queen). > > Caroline Criado-Perez successfully campaigned for Jane Austin to be added > to £10 notes and received threats of rape and death. > http://www.telegraph.co.uk/technology/10207231/Woman-who-campaigned-for-Jane-Austen-bank-note-receives-Twitter-death-threats.html > > That instigated an online campaign which resulted in Twitter adding its > 'report' button. > > Isabella Sorley, 23, of Newcastle-upon-Tyne, tweets included: "die you > worthless piece of crap", "go kill yourself" and, "I've only just got out > of prison and would happily do more time to see you berried!!" > > John Nimmo, 25, of South Shields, made references to rape and added: "I > will find you (smiley face)". > > Sorley was sentenced to 12 weeks > in prison, and Nimmo was jailed for 8 > weeks. http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-25886026 > > The law they broke was Section 127 of the Communications Act 2003 > http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2003/21/section/127 > > If UK-based Wikipedian 'X' breaches s.127 of the Comms. Act due to > something they said on Wikipedia about UK-based Wikipedian 'Y' then they > face criminal prosecution and possibly jail. > > The litmus test is whether what they have said is not only 'offensive' > but, 'grossly offensive'. Wikipedia's internal systems and thresholds would > make no difference to the authorities in the UK. It would be interesting to > see what the public fall-out would be if Wikipedia decided that no action > should be taken against X whilst the UK jailed him / her. > > Marie > >
_______________________________________________ Gendergap mailing list [email protected] To manage your subscription preferences, including unsubscribing, please visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/gendergap
