I am going to start collecting resources here – articles, case law, any individual stories that could be useful.
Please add anything you think is relevant in the comment section or contact me via Twitter @SVPhillimore.
Articles, blog posts and commentary
Unsocial media: The real toll of online abuse against women by Azmina Dhrodia
Twitter’s policy against hateful conduct – does not seem to be consistently enforced?
Bar this Troll – Sunday Mirror article February 11th 2018
Online Hate – Words will never harm me, or will they? Blog from Katy Jon Went.
Why good people turn bad online – Gaia Vince 2nd April 2018
How to criticise with kindness: Philosopher Daniel Dennett on the four steps to arguing intelligently
Strategies for dealing with on line harassment Child Protection Resource
Japanese blogger stabbed to death, allegedly by on line harasser with a grudge Laura Hudson 26th June 2018
My sister’s suicide came after years of abuse – it must not be the only escape for victims. The Metro 19th July 2018
The Internet Trolls have won. Sorry, there’s not much you can do. Brian X Chen 8th August 2018
Case Law and legal guidance
Hayes v Willoughby  UKSC17
Monroe v Hopkins  EWHC 433 (QB)
Hewson v Commissioner of Police of the Metropolis  EWHC 471 (Admin)
Reviews and Reform Proposals
On 6th February 2018 the Government asked the Law Commission to review the law on ‘trolling’. The Law Commission will examine:
- How the Malicious Communications Act 1988 deals with offensive online communications
- How the Communications Act 2003 deals with online communications
- What “grossly offensive” means and whether that poses difficulties in legal certainty
- Whether the law means you need to prove fault or prove intention to prosecute offensive online communications
- The need to update definitions in the law which technology has rendered obsolete or confused, such as the meaning of “sender”
- How other parts of the criminal law overlap with online communications laws
Freespeechdebate.com – Timothy Garton Ash explains the thinking behind the project:
“To give a clear structure, we have organised this debate around ten principles for global free expression. These have been thrashed out in discussions with free speech experts, lawyers, political theorists, theologians, philosophers, activists and journalists from across the world. They have been revised in hours of detailed work with our team of current Oxford graduate students, including native speakers of all the 13 major languages in which the site’s editorial content appears. We have tried very hard to make the principles short, clear and comprehensible in all these languages. These draft principles both complement and qualify each other. They need to be understood as an interlocking set. We cannot emphasise too strongly that this is just a first attempt at drafting some rules-of-thumb for what we should or should not be free to express, and in what manner we may choose express it, in a world where everybody is becoming neighbours with everybody else.”