Law in Action - Written assignment
The concept of a ‘troll’ refers to someone who posts purposefully o ensive and irrelevant
messages to a speci c individual in order to spark and provoke a reaction of discomfort
and sadness. These messages can be sent using di erent varieties of social media, the
only common denominator being the o topic messages that cause the victim dejection.
Christopher Hopkinson accurately de ned trolling as a ‘certain type of antagonistic
interaction occurring in online discussions’1. This provocation aims to achieve an
emotional response, normally for the sole purpose of amusement. The reason why
‘trolling’ is seen to popularise the world of bullying is due to the fact that these ‘trolls’
remain anonymous, meaning a common void in any possible consequences.
Regarding the legal aspects surrounding trolling, England and Wales created the
‘Malicious Communications Act (1988)’ which widely covers comments made online that
purposefully cause distress and/or anxiety (trolling).2 As well as this, the Protection from
Harassment Act (1997) which surrounds o ences regarding stalking; online and o ine.3
Due to these current laws, the rate of ‘trolling’ has overall decreased, however is still a
major issue. Punishment for trolling, however, isn’t universal. For example, the USA
doesn’t carry any criminal authorisations under federal law due to the fact that any
legislations introduced were ordinarily considered unconstitutional due to the
comprehensive range of the language used. Controversy, Australia prohibits the use of
social media to purposefully harass and cause a menace to another rational person
online, thus showing the potential shift towards laws regarding online activity and ‘trolling'
in di erent places around the world.4
A key case from the media regarding trolling surrounded the online trolling of Madeline
McCann. These ‘trolls’ were referred to as the ‘anti-McCanns’ due to the direct o ensive
messaged towards Kate and Gerry McCann. The anti-McCann trolls were aimed to
‘provoke and derogate members of the pro-McCann group.’ This article contains ndings
supporting the idea that trolling is directly linked to the characteristics of anti-social
personality disorder as well as western media culture, showing the sensitive nature of
online trolling. 5 Cases such as this one have resulted in the prosecutions, and sometimes
imprisionment, of individuals for the sole propose of online trolling. For example, Sean
Du y received a custodial sentence and thus was jailed for 18 weeks due to online trolling
by posting o ensive messages towards a group of deceased adolescent girls. In this
case, Du y was charged under the Malicious Communications Act (1988) which had just
1Christopher Hopkinson, ‘From Provocation to Community-Building’ [2013] Trolling in
Online Discussions 6
2 Malicious Communications Act 1988, s1(1)
3 Edward Petch, ‘Anti-stalking laws and the Protection from Harassment Act (1997)’
[2011] 13 (1) TJFP <https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10> accessed 27 November
2019.
4 Mark Wilson, Esq. ‘Are you an internet ‘Troll’? Legal consequences to consider’. (21
October 2014) <https://blogs. ndlaw.com/law_and_life/2014/10/are-you-an-internet-troll-
legal-consequences-to-consider.html> accessed 27 November 2019.
5John Synnott, Andria Coulias, Maria Ioannou, ‘Online Trolling the Case of Madeleine
McCann’ [2017] 2
ff ff
ff ff fi fi fi ff ff ff ff ffffl
fi
The concept of a ‘troll’ refers to someone who posts purposefully o ensive and irrelevant
messages to a speci c individual in order to spark and provoke a reaction of discomfort
and sadness. These messages can be sent using di erent varieties of social media, the
only common denominator being the o topic messages that cause the victim dejection.
Christopher Hopkinson accurately de ned trolling as a ‘certain type of antagonistic
interaction occurring in online discussions’1. This provocation aims to achieve an
emotional response, normally for the sole purpose of amusement. The reason why
‘trolling’ is seen to popularise the world of bullying is due to the fact that these ‘trolls’
remain anonymous, meaning a common void in any possible consequences.
Regarding the legal aspects surrounding trolling, England and Wales created the
‘Malicious Communications Act (1988)’ which widely covers comments made online that
purposefully cause distress and/or anxiety (trolling).2 As well as this, the Protection from
Harassment Act (1997) which surrounds o ences regarding stalking; online and o ine.3
Due to these current laws, the rate of ‘trolling’ has overall decreased, however is still a
major issue. Punishment for trolling, however, isn’t universal. For example, the USA
doesn’t carry any criminal authorisations under federal law due to the fact that any
legislations introduced were ordinarily considered unconstitutional due to the
comprehensive range of the language used. Controversy, Australia prohibits the use of
social media to purposefully harass and cause a menace to another rational person
online, thus showing the potential shift towards laws regarding online activity and ‘trolling'
in di erent places around the world.4
A key case from the media regarding trolling surrounded the online trolling of Madeline
McCann. These ‘trolls’ were referred to as the ‘anti-McCanns’ due to the direct o ensive
messaged towards Kate and Gerry McCann. The anti-McCann trolls were aimed to
‘provoke and derogate members of the pro-McCann group.’ This article contains ndings
supporting the idea that trolling is directly linked to the characteristics of anti-social
personality disorder as well as western media culture, showing the sensitive nature of
online trolling. 5 Cases such as this one have resulted in the prosecutions, and sometimes
imprisionment, of individuals for the sole propose of online trolling. For example, Sean
Du y received a custodial sentence and thus was jailed for 18 weeks due to online trolling
by posting o ensive messages towards a group of deceased adolescent girls. In this
case, Du y was charged under the Malicious Communications Act (1988) which had just
1Christopher Hopkinson, ‘From Provocation to Community-Building’ [2013] Trolling in
Online Discussions 6
2 Malicious Communications Act 1988, s1(1)
3 Edward Petch, ‘Anti-stalking laws and the Protection from Harassment Act (1997)’
[2011] 13 (1) TJFP <https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10> accessed 27 November
2019.
4 Mark Wilson, Esq. ‘Are you an internet ‘Troll’? Legal consequences to consider’. (21
October 2014) <https://blogs. ndlaw.com/law_and_life/2014/10/are-you-an-internet-troll-
legal-consequences-to-consider.html> accessed 27 November 2019.
5John Synnott, Andria Coulias, Maria Ioannou, ‘Online Trolling the Case of Madeleine
McCann’ [2017] 2
ff ff
ff ff fi fi fi ff ff ff ff ffffl
fi
