Internet Trolling...should it be a criminal offence

[scottym23]

Pardon me if I sound a bit harsh or come off rude, but are you serious? 90% of trolls are kids 15 and under just spewing random hate so that their friends think they're cool. Another 9.99% are people who may be older but have low self esteem and have to gain confidence by making others feel bad over the internet. There are so few "trolls" that would actually go about, what exactly, "trolling" someone in real life? What, send them some hateful mail or something is what you're referring to them doing once they have the person's personal identity? I would say 99% of the time the troll is more afraid to have their own personal identity revealed than the victim.

What is your name, your full name? Your address? Your phone number?

 

If you wanted it bad enough you could get all of that information easily. you'd just have to work for it. If someone is willing to purposely troll someone to the point of maybe possibly they'll take you to civil court, and then get more information from that person, then they're no longer a troll and just a psychopath. This law isn't meant to stop anyone else or any other type of person but trolls. The type of person that would do this is in the VAST minority and can be considered a reasonable percentage of people to just ignore. Do you know there are people who die every year by vending machines falling on them? I don't see any laws or movements in place to make them safer..why? Because it's an "acceptable loss" to most people. The percentage of people who actually die or get injured from them compared to the amount of times people use them is so small that people don't think it's a problem; and it's not. The same goes with this law and the "real life information trolls" you are afraid of (better classified as psychopaths but whatever..). A few of them might do this, but what percentage? So minuscule that it will be an acceptable loss, just like vending machine death/injuries.

[marharth]

90% of trolls are kids 15 and under just spewing random hate so that their friends think they're cool. Another 9.99% are people who may be older but have low self esteem and have to gain confidence by making others feel bad over the internet.

 

If someone is willing to purposely troll someone to the point of maybe possibly they'll take you to civil court, and then get more information from that person, then they're no longer a troll and just a psychopath.

So you are saying we should charge kids and people with mental issues for crimes because of something they said online?

 

So its not psychopathic to stalk someone and hate them to the point that they commit suicide?

 

A troll is someone who posts off topic or hateful messages with the purpose of invoking a hateful/mad response. It is not trolling to make someone kill themselves.

 

For your vending machine comparison, do you know any actual stats on how many people get harmed by trolling by any chance?

[ginnyfizz]

So...a psychopath/sociopath is someone with mental health issues. Are you saying that they should therefore not be punished? Under any circumstances?

 

I am not sure how it stands in the US, but in Britain and countries with similar legal systems, the legal definition of insanity is governed by the M'Naghten rules. In order for the defence of not guilty by reason of insanity to succeed, the defendant has, to paraphrase slightly, to " be labouring under such abnormality of mind as not to know the nature and quality of their act, or alternatively such that they did not know that their act was wrong." In other words, it is possible to be both mad and bad at the same time. Psychopaths/sociopaths for example tend to be highly intelligent, devious, arrogant and know exactly what they are doing, they just don't think the rules apply to them. Our most prolific serial killer, Dr Harold Shipman, was a classic example.

 

No, I am not equating trolls with serial killers, although some of the worst cases may cross over from trolling into criminality. I am just making the point that insanity is a very grey area.

 

No, I am still not in favour of new legislation, although I do sometimes fantasise about putting some of the little teenage trollkins I come across in the stocks or pillory....

[scottym23]

90% of trolls are kids 15 and under just spewing random hate so that their friends think they're cool. Another 9.99% are people who may be older but have low self esteem and have to gain confidence by making others feel bad over the internet.

 

If someone is willing to purposely troll someone to the point of maybe possibly they'll take you to civil court, and then get more information from that person, then they're no longer a troll and just a psychopath.

So you are saying we should charge kids and people with mental issues for crimes because of something they said online?

 

So its not psychopathic to stalk someone and hate them to the point that they commit suicide?

 

A troll is someone who posts off topic or hateful messages with the purpose of invoking a hateful/mad response. It is not trolling to make someone kill themselves.

 

For your vending machine comparison, do you know any actual stats on how many people get harmed by trolling by any chance?

 

I don't even know how to respond to that because it's so random and pointless to argue those points as you don't even truly answer any of my response with answers, you just state a different question. I'll try my best though..

 

Charging people isn't the main concern, it's getting their identity so that they aren't anonymous and therefore powerless. The law would let you get the trolls identity so THEN you could decide whether to press charges or not in court. That alone would scare the trolls away.

 

To your second statement, yeah it can be psychopathic but not always. Doesn't really matter though, since i'll just refer back to what I said as them being "trolls" over the internet, and may not act that way in real life.

 

For your third statement, yeah you're right..I don't know if you were trying to paraphrase what I was saying or just stating a fact, but in any case yup sounds about right.

 

And for your fourth statement, No one can have any real estimate based on facts or counted by stats on how many people are effected by it, but I can tell you with a certainty that the number is extremely low if not almost none that get "trolled" in real life, which is what I guess you were referring to in that statement. Again that was just an estimate without any facts or stats to back it up.

[marharth]

I don't even know how to respond to that because it's so random and pointless to argue those points as you don't even truly answer any of my response with answers, you just state a different question. I'll try my best though..

 

Charging people isn't the main concern, it's getting their identity so that they aren't anonymous and therefore powerless. The law would let you get the trolls identity so THEN you could decide whether to press charges or not in court. That alone would scare the trolls away.

 

To your second statement, yeah it can be psychopathic but not always. Doesn't really matter though, since i'll just refer back to what I said as them being "trolls" over the internet, and may not act that way in real life.

 

For your third statement, yeah you're right..I don't know if you were trying to paraphrase what I was saying or just stating a fact, but in any case yup sounds about right.

 

And for your fourth statement, No one can have any real estimate based on facts or counted by stats on how many people are effected by it, but I can tell you with a certainty that the number is extremely low if not almost none that get "trolled" in real life, which is what I guess you were referring to in that statement. Again that was just an estimate without any facts or stats to back it up.

So the law makes people afraid of saying what they want online because they might get charged with a crime. Alright. That doesn't sound like a good idea to me.

 

Once again, do you consider it not psychopathic to stalk someone to the point that they kill themselves? It doesn't matter if its in real life or not.

 

If you acknowledged that trolling is someone posting hateful things to get a angry response, why don't you want pranks to be illegal? Pranks are the same thing. Doing things that might be harmful to invoke a bad emotional response.

 

If the number of people who actually get harmed by trolls is low, why do you need a law to defend them? Is it worth giving up freedom of speech just because you want to protect people who get mad online?

 

As for Ginny, what about kids? According to the previous post he made he said the majority were kids. Psychopaths should be treated, not punished.

 

Take note this law is if someone damages your reputation. NOT if you push someone to suicide, or anything like that. You can damage someones reputation in multiple ways. Politcal attack ads would be considered illegal under this. Even if you were truthful about something it would be considered illegal. That is if the first post is correct.

Edited August 27, 2012 by marharth

[ginnyfizz]

Marharth, once again you are deliberately twisting my words. What invariably happens to psychopaths in the UK, including child ones, is that they will be convicted of their crime due to the fact that it is deemed that they knew what they were doing. We had a case of two lads, one of whom was a classic sociopath and the other was suggestible and of low intelligence, who abducted a toddler and murdered him in horrific circumstances. As I said, they were convicted of murder and were sent to a rehabilitation unit "during Her Majesty's pleasure" which means that they will be released when they are no longer deemed to be a public danger. They were released as they attained adulthood to spare them going to adult prison, and one of them promptly reoffended and was convicted of child pornography offences.

 

Adult psychopaths who are convicted will invariably end up in a secure hospital at Her Majesty's pleasure, which in the case of the likes of Brady, Sutcliffe and Nielsen (Google them)means lock them up and throw away the key, but treat them while they are in there. Personally I think it's a damned shame that Brady missed the three yards of cord and a sliding board treatment by a matter of months.

 

You totally miss the point. You can be both mad and bad under almost any legal system I can think of.

 

To return to the subject of internet trolls, for those that crossed the line into criminality/sociopathy under the existing law, a spell in Ashworth, Broadmoor or Rampton would certainly cool their enthusiasm for making lives a misery.

 

And don't trivialise loss of reputation. It could destroy someone's career in the medical or legal profession or cause their business to fail, condemning the victim to penury and ruining their lives.

 

You are also completely wrong about what the proposed new law does, it compels ISP's to reveal the identity of the troll so that a civil action can be mounted more easily. That would not preclude political attacks and would still allow the defences of truth and fair comment on a matter of public interest.

 

The irony is that whilst it would still be a civil action and therefore only possible for the rich and famous to sue, it would be far easier to raise the public interest defence against them.

Whereas the ordinary person would still not be able to afford to sue, even though there would be almost no chance of a public interest defence to their action.

 

That is why I think this new law is an ass. It does nothing for Mr or Ms Average.

[marharth]

How did I "twist your words?"

 

If you mean the part about punishing them, what is "Are you saying that they should therefore not be punished? Under any circumstances?" supposed to mean?

 

"You are also completely wrong about what the proposed new law does, it compels ISP's to reveal the identity of the troll so that a civil action can be mounted more easily. That would not preclude political attacks and would still allow the defences of truth and fair comment on a matter of public interest."

 

How so? It is revealing the identity of someone who caused serious reputation damage, so that they could be charged with a crime later on. Why would it not apply to anonymous political attacks? According to the first post it simply said serious reputation damage.

Edited August 27, 2012 by marharth

[rizon72]

I hope not. All it takes then to get into trouble is a perceived insult, twisting of words, or a mispelling and you could be in trouble. You see in forums all the time, someone writes one thing and someone else thinks they are being insulted.

[mizdarby]

After a few days thought, I believe that any anti-trolling law would have to both remove the actual label "troll", and clearly define the nature of activities which would be deemed worthy of be dealt with under the new law changes.

 

The more historic and accurate definition of trolling is "In Internet slang, a troll is someone who posts inflammatory, extraneous, or off-topic messages in an online community, such as a forum, chat room, or blog, with the primary intent of provoking readers into an emotional response or of otherwise disrupting normal on-topic discussion.. Those sort of internet activities, in my opinion should NOT be subject to any disclosure of identity, with a view to pursueing a civil case.

 

The media created definition is "Mass media has used the term troll to describe "a person who defaces Internet tribute sites with the aim of causing grief to families.". This in my view is the sort of activities, which if is deemed beyond the realms of acceptability (under the terms of a new piece of anti-trolling legislation) should be liable to disclosure of identity, leading to a potential civil case. And as I continue to maintain, where this form of "trolling" is targetted at emotional vulnerable people, leading to severe emotional harm/suicidal tendencies in the targetted individual/s, the "troller" should be open to criminal charges.

 

I would hope whatever the nature of any anti-trolling legislation might be (if there is indeed any new legislation), would be legally "watertight", to prevent parties not directly involved in the troll/target scenario, using disclosure of identity for other purposes, such as political parties, isps' etc. Any loss of anonymity on the side of the "troller", MUST be exclusivly for the purposes of civil cases against him/her.

[Ghogiel]

For giggles:

 

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-leeds-19604735

 

Basically some guy wrote this as a facebook status a couple days after a bunch of soldiers got blown up in Afghanistan:

 

“People gassin about the deaths of Soldiers! What about the innocent familys who have been brutally killed.. The women who have.been raped.. The children who have been sliced up..! Your enemy’s were the Taliban not innocent harmful familys. All soldiers should DIE & go to HELL! THE LOWLIFE FOKKIN SCUM! gotta problem go cry at your soldiers grave & wish him hell because thats where he is going..”

 

He was originally charged with "a racially aggravated public order offence". Which is hilarious because it just isn't racist. At all. And ironic because of the amount of racial abuse he has since received since the case was put forth. Anyway they changed the charge to a grossly offensive message contrary to Section 127 of the Communications Act 2003.

 

He has been found guilty and will be sentenced later.

 

I've and a lot of us in the UK have our work cut out now, a lot of calling of the police on people who post 'scum' and 'should die and go to hell' in internet messages at individuals or rather just groups of people.

Edited October 1, 2012 by Ghogiel