Internet Trolling...should it be a criminal offence

[HeyYou]

Nevermind. I have made some sensible and serious posts, and speak from very bitter experience, but I can see that there is a tendency on the part of people not to believe just how bad trolling can get. Going to take this to PM.

 

I don't dispute that trolling can indeed get very bad, we see examples of it on a fairly regular basis. My major problem with trying to legislate away a problem is the points I have covered already, enforceability, and cross-jurisdictional complications. By and large, the trolls are seldom in the same country as the the victim. Prosecuting a successful suit of any flavor under such circumstances is going to be difficult, if not impossible for the average Joe/Jane. Even should both troll and victim be in the same country...... it ain't gonna be easy by any means. I also see a LOT of opportunity for exploitation of this law, by assorted politicians... I think this is a can of worms that needs some serious consideration before breaking out with the opener.

[Lisnpuppy]

This is kinda related...I toss this in not to debate really but to see the issues at least in the US.

 

To say that trolling has hurt you in some way would be hard to prove I think. I agree with Hey You about the issues with taking advantage of such legislation to do mroe than its intent or to make it so specific it would not be useful. Now that being said there is a site here in the US called "Angie's List" This is basically a place where folks can come and comment on SOMEONE'S BUSINESS and say if they did a great job or rip them a new one. There are actually commercials on tv advertizing this site.

 

I honestly don't know how this in may cases be considered libel as it could ruin your business and personal reputation. Yet as I said...its adverts are on the TV and I have not heard of any lawsuits as yes (though that isn't saying there are not.)

 

So if things like this survive then how difficult will it be to legislate trolling, even as horrid and bad as it gets?

 

Just tossing it out there.

[ginnyfizz]

I do wish people would cease quoting me as being a person who is in favour of new laws when I have made it abundantly clear that I am not.

 

I would also like to point out that my country is a first world one, not some kind of third world dictatorship and is the home of Magna Carta, the Mother of Parliaments, that we still have Habeas Corpus and yes, shock horror, a Bill of Rights, as well as a highly independent and bloody minded judiciary, and a non elected second chamber in the House Of Lords that can certainly give Governments a bloody nose from time to time. Actually Berialord's comments are pretty rude but at the same time an example of the kind of thing that should NOT be actionable.

 

I repeat, just in case I haven't made myself clear, I am talking about the kind of trolling that crosses the line from mere rudery and name calling to threats, intimidation and defamation severe enough to be actionable (where you could prove a loss, believe it or not loss of your reputation in certain professions can lead you to lose your job and to severe financial loss.) Like the paediatrician who got mistaken for a paedophile and got driven out of town by a hate campaign.

 

@Lisnpuppy, that list thing you mentioned, if a tradesman has done a bad job and someone vents about it, there is normally good evidence to show that they made a dog's breakfast of the job, especially if the person who commissioned them had to call in further tradesmen to do remedial work. Certainly in English law, if a venting householder said that "Joe the Plumber is a douchebag who flooded meh bathroom" and could prove it, they would have a defence to a libel action, ie that their assertion was the truth. We have a TV programme in the UK called Rogue Traders that exposes cowboy traders and rip off merchants, who rarely sue because truth is being told.

 

The problem is false allegations.

[Lisnpuppy]

Ginny I gotta say you lost me some on that one unless some post got edited somewhere.

 

However I think my discussion of Angie's list show the difficulty that may happen in the enforcement of existing or new legislation in the US anyway. I think part of the problem is people's mindset of the internet and not taking the effect it has seriously?

 

EDIT: @Ginny..yes the issue is false allegations and with the anonymity of the internet and these types of sites (and there are rip off sites) then the likelyhood of false allegations are up...and as you have mentioned current law really doesn't make it easy to track down those who have harmed someone.

 

But my point is that if a site like this is not take seriously for the possibility of libel and things of that nature...then a random website even when someone is truely causing one some harm...is even harder to do an even harder for people to take seriously as...perhaps like bullying they don't see it as an issue. Alternately....there is the concern of people trying to take frivolous trolling complaints and escalating them into a lawsuit worthy kind of thing.

 

As we know the laws of our nations are very behind the technology of the world. Finding a balance will be an issue, changing attitudes toward internet behavior and still protecting the spreading of views and information on the internet that has made it so cool thus far.

[Syco21]

Pretty sure that Angie's List has some sort of tool for a business owner to dispute an allegation. I've never actually used it, so I don't know. I'd think that, if presented with evidence that an allegation is false, and that Angie's List refuses to remove the false allegation, then they would be held liable for the damages.

 

I doubt that most people don't take the damages one can suffer from the internet seriously. If anything, they just don't want to see a bunch of censorship laws crop up. The whole slippery slope problem, it's not just a cliche, and even if it's a logical fallacy, it's still a very real and easily demonstrated.

[Beriallord]

There is plenty of lies, half-truths, and misinformation being thrown out in politics, and by political campaigns with the intention of destroying someone's credibility. If that is legal, then what is so different than someone doing that in another manner? Like destroying someones reputation with lies in another manner? Instead of trying to make a legal distinction, and by saying when it is right or wrong, its better to leave free speech intact.

 

If someone is so easily distressed by comments of someone on the internet, then they really don't need to be online, and frequenting places where people make them feel offended. For the same reasons people might say something behind a keyboard they might not say in person, some people might act overly offended by something written by someone on the internet, but if confronted with it in person would keep their mouth shut and move on. Its one of the reasons things can get out of hand in a discussion on the internet, when in person its more likely communication remains civil.

[mizdarby]

Pretty sure that Angie's List has some sort of tool for a business owner to dispute an allegation. I've never actually used it, so I don't know. I'd think that, if presented with evidence that an allegation is false, and that Angie's List refuses to remove the false allegation, then they would be held liable for the damages.

 

I doubt that most people don't take the damages one can suffer from the internet seriously. If anything, they just don't want to see a bunch of censorship laws crop up. The whole slippery slope problem, it's not just a cliche, and even if it's a logical fallacy, it's still a very real and easily demonstrated.

I don't know Angie's List either, and think you are most certainly correct in your assessment.

 

My overriding concern with any anti-trolling legislation, would be governments using their new powers to censor the internet, most governments of the world would love to have no free speech on the web at all, and the temptation to abuse anti-trolling laws would probably lead to increased censorship, which I am most certainly against. Once again I agree with your point.

 

Where we may never agree, is my view that extreme trolling, targeting vulnerable individuals and facebook tribute pages etc, should be a criminal offense.

 

For example, the case of Tom Mullany, a 15 year old boy who was bullied on the web, and hung himself. Trolls then targeted his tribute page, making comments such as "Hang in there Tom" accompanied with doctored photos of Tom with a noose around his neck. One of the trollers (Pro Fessor), when challenged about his comments, basically shrugged his shoulders and said he couldn't give a damn about the hurt he caused.

 

That is not acceptable, nor forgivable, and the trollers who post such things, should be jailed, bottom line.

[Beriallord]

Pretty sure that Angie's List has some sort of tool for a business owner to dispute an allegation. I've never actually used it, so I don't know. I'd think that, if presented with evidence that an allegation is false, and that Angie's List refuses to remove the false allegation, then they would be held liable for the damages.

 

I doubt that most people don't take the damages one can suffer from the internet seriously. If anything, they just don't want to see a bunch of censorship laws crop up. The whole slippery slope problem, it's not just a cliche, and even if it's a logical fallacy, it's still a very real and easily demonstrated.

I don't know Angie's List either, and think you are most certainly correct in your assessment.

 

My overriding concern with any anti-trolling legislation, would be governments using their new powers to censor the internet, most governments of the world would love to have no free speech on the web at all, and the temptation to abuse anti-trolling laws would probably lead to increased censorship, which I am most certainly against. Once again I agree with your point.

 

Where we may never agree, is my view that extreme trolling, targeting vulnerable individuals and facebook tribute pages etc, should be a criminal offense.

 

For example, the case of Tom Mullany, a 15 year old boy who was bullied on the web, and hung himself. Trolls then targeted his tribute page, making comments such as "Hang in there Tom" accompanied with doctored photos of Tom with a noose around his neck. One of the trollers (Pro Fessor), when challenged about his comments, basically shrugged his shoulders and said he couldn't give a damn about the hurt he caused.

 

That is not acceptable, nor forgivable, and the trollers who post such things, should be jailed, bottom line.

 

What about the Westboro Baptist church and them protesting at the funerals of soldiers that died overseas? Holding up signs like "God loves dead soldiers", and etc. As much as I hate people that do things like that, I still support their right to free speech. Because once you go down the slippery slope, it is a path of no return, and only leads downhill from there.

 

Trolls thrive on negativity, the more spotlight and attention you give them, the bolder they become. If someone is leaving comments on a blog or web page, whoever manages it can remove the comments, and or ban the trolls. Just because a few people want to take free speech to its extreme limits, doesn't mean normal people should suffer from an infringement on free speech rights.

Edited August 13, 2012 by Beriallord

[mizdarby]

As my favourite oblivion npc, Glarthir would have said "Who would ever suspect the outstanding freedom of speech"

 

Firstly, freedom of speech is just a concept, that in reality barely exists. When people were creating the concept, they were concerned with having a voice, being able to stick it to the man, being able to express malcontent and disapproval. Those pioneers certainly did not imagine freedom of speech, as a tool to beat up on the vulnerable or too post cruel stuff on the tribute sites of dead people.

 

Secondly, freedom of speech is a two way process, which people seem to overlook. The troll under the umbrella of free speech, has the right to be as vile as they wish. But then the victim also has freedom of speech, and has equal rights to respond to the troll, as they wish. So in the case of extreme trolling, the troll can post hurtful and disgusting posts on the victims' social media/email etc, but with an anti-trolling law in place, the victim has equal right to get the troll punished under the law.

 

Trolls do thrive on negativity, and they are often clever individuals who can get under peoples' skin. But if extreme trolling were a criminal offense, would they thrive having to watch their asses in prison, because they posted sick stuff on dead childrens' tribute sites.

 

As for the Westboro Baptist church, and this will not surprise you, I think they should be roundly condemned for saying "God loves dead soldiers". The slope need only be as slippery as the public allow it to be.

[Ghogiel]

The slope need only be as slippery as the public legislation allow it to be.

ftfy.

Edited August 13, 2012 by Ghogiel