Everything is decided by courts in USA. In UK, the rules are much stricter.
First of all, the title of the article makes it clear she feels they should not have to endure threats.
Second, I doubt she feels they should be completely immune, just that the volume is a problem.
I agree with her: people should not behave that way. If they had been properly raised, they wouldn’t behave that way. And they only behave that way because they believe they will not suffer any consequences for their actions.
I do not think this is an area where a law would help. At least not more than the harm it would cause. We already have enough laws in this area: making threats is a crime, for example. The law recognizes it for the attack it is.
The problem is the anonymity. If posters were easily identified, they could be charged with the crimes they commit.
This would also help address the insults that do not rise to the level of crime. People would be more careful about who they called a “whore” if that person (or their supporters, or the self-appointed “decency police”) could show up at their door and punch them in the face.
The Guardian lives in a different legal reality: I don’t know exactly where Britain draws it’s line in slander and libel, but I have seen several occasions where folks from the UK, trying to come up with something slanderous to say, had to be reminded that in the US an expression of *opinion is not slander.
So to slander a public figure, in the US I would have to say something derogatory about him that was factually untrue, while in the UK apparently it would count if I called him a jerk.
Thus, the Guardian is protecting its poster from committing slander, and no doubt also protecting itself from accessory charges.
That would be an excellent name for the bill to punish people who commit harassment online, too.
If it would be illegal to do it in person, it should be illegal to do it online.
If you followed a woman down the street yelling “Bitch” and “whore” at her, you can bet you’d get arrested. (Well, you’d get astern talking to from a cop, who would tell you to stop. If you didn’t stop, then you’d get arrested.)
See, problem solved and we don’t need any new laws: insulting someone isn’t illegal, but burying them in a barrage of insults is.
When do insults become more than insults? When they’re relentless? And vile? And hateful? And violent in their language? Sometimes? Never?
Threats are illegal even in USA, but expressing contempt for anyone is legal, and it is a part of a political statement.
In USA expressing contempt by using strong language is legal.
There have been some explorations, in the civil courts, about actionable language, such as saying things that are so hateful that the victim commits suicide.
I think this needs to be pushed back against, on slippery-slope grounds. I might say, “Well, that novel wasn’t very good,” and the author might commit suicide. What responsibility do I bear?
In moral terms, no one should say really hateful things…but we need to continue to protect our legal right to do so. (And anyone who disagrees… Yeah, well.)