I know some people don't like links and don't pay for the Telegraph anyway, so here's an article by Stella Creasy. You can click on the link or Google, if you want to see some of the abuse she had to put up with.
Stella Creasy Twitter troll hell: 'I can't get the last year of my life back'
As a shadow minister I helped legislation go through parliament to tackle stalking. Little did I know I would end up testing its effectiveness. To date four people have been convicted of sending me ‘malicious communications’ - or threats to rape and kill in layman’s terms. Today’s 18-week prison sentence for Peter Nunn is a firm rejection of his pathetic suggestions he was defending free speech, being a feminist ally and didn’t realise the distress his behaviour caused, when he targeted me on Twitter. He branded me a witch and threatened to harm me in the most gruesome ways. Yet making this about the words he used, and not his course of conduct, risks limiting the lessons it offers.
he patriot in me blanched to be told rape and death threat messages are a British Twitter phenomenon. We learnt this last summer when campaigner Caroline Criado-Perez used it to campaign for equal representation on our banknotes. In return she was subjected to horrific messages threatening her with sexual and physical violence – at their peak around 50 an hour- from multiple anonymous accounts. When others and I stood up for her, we were targeted too.
The fear Mr Nunn and his ilk (147 different Twitter accounts were identified as perpetuating this kind of abuse) created came not just from their language, but the persistence and escalation of their actions. Even when he wasn’t advocating women like Caroline and myself be drowned and violated shortly before death, his sustained interest in our suffering was terrifying. That we repeatedly asked him and the others to stop contacting us, serves to highlight how free speech is only free if both sides can communicate without fear. Moreover, the authorities didn’t even know how to begin investigating whether one person was sending these messages or many individuals - I had to flag up to police one of those convicted was tweeting they lived near me.
Many chastised me that as this abuse was happening online ‘it wasn’t serious’. That we should just ignore those who send such messages; that repeating them was giving them the attention they craved. One police officer even suggested I was picking on the perpetrators by retweeting their threats - until I pointed out that current legislation says you must tell someone to stop and it was the only way I had to let trolls know their tweets were distressing.
A very old crime - harassment- is taking a very new form. That those sending these messages use a new medium - whether Twitter, Facebook, Ask.fm or Instagram - should not define how we assess whether those receiving them are in danger. A year on, I occasionally still get online threats. I regularly get abusive or unwelcome attention. I can see the difference between both, but without detail on who sent them, no one can tell whether I should worry about either.
Several of the technology companies are finally now stepping up their own capability to ensure their platforms are safe for users. We’ve seen a 20 per cent increase in stalking prosecutions in the last year since the aforementioned law was introduced. It’s high-time the police and CPS used these powers to take account of online behaviour too.
Organisations like Paladin, the national stalking helpline, are helping train police and criminal justice representatives. Yet victims often face the difficulties of local law enforcement and negativity online so do not act. That 50 per cent of stalking cases involve online as well as offline activities underscores the need to see the crime as a crime – regardless of the technology used to commit it. One prosecutor suggested to me this could ‘open the floodgates’ of complaints. That there are floodgates to be opened is the real problem, along with overcoming the preconceptions about the internet that prevent them from being tackled in the first place.
I love the potential social media offers for discussion and debate. Yet like any other medium of communication its users define it, not all of whom for the better. No MP asks for special treatment – online I find a kitten picture or the block button a good way of defusing rudeness and grumpiness. But this has never been about people’s right to tell politicians they think they suck.
I can’t get the last year back or erase the inevitable personal impact of getting constant threats. Recently someone followed me from the Tube to talk to me and I felt my heart in my mouth. Sadly and predictably this whole episode has made me more wary of strangers than I wish. But we can keep pushing for those floodgates to be opened. It is not for those affected to ‘put up’ with such attacks, but for those doing this to be stopped.
Another policeman told me my case had convinced him his daughter should not be active online. We try to teach kids to be street smart and would baulk at the idea that street harassment restricts the movement of anyone. So too we will all suffer if the web became only for those who can stomach such assaults. If we want everyone to be free to enjoy kitten videos and discuss Strictly Come Dancing, it’s time we made sure everyone is free to express themselves - on and offline.
, but I do find it annoying, when people (for example) call somebody 'arrogant as usual' or some such thing. Maybe you don't see it like that.
Well if you dish it out then you must be prepared to take it too. That sounds like the cut and thrust of GN and people do retaliate if prodded. 
it might of course be me having been out in the sun too long.
)