|
heavenlyabyss
Phoenix
Joined: Sep 10, 2011
Posts: 530
|
 Posted: Tue Apr 24, 2012 5:27 am Post subject: |
 |
|
There's no such thing as a troll. Troll is just a euphemism for a bully.
The law will never hold up. We can't even prosecute bullies in real life. How the hell are we going to prosecute internet bullies? I'm not saying they shouldn't be punished but it's not practical. The problem can't be solved through punishment, it can only be solved through mass societal change. |
|
| Back to top |
|
snapcap
Phoenix
Joined: Oct 13, 2011
Age: 31
Posts: 2328
|
| Posted: Tue Apr 24, 2012 1:12 pm Post subject: |
|
|
If they go after trolls, then they should just go after people that are stupid as well.
_________________
*some atheist walks outside and picks up stick*
some atheist to stick: "You're like me!" |
|
| Back to top |
|
Aspiegirl7
Butterfly
Joined: Jun 20, 2011
Posts: 17
|
| Posted: Thu Apr 26, 2012 10:02 pm Post subject: Just more of the thought police |
|
|
I love that penn n teller video, it makes the point perfectly. And as I think about it, bullying is on the rise I think because of our permissive and increasingly non-violence espousing. Society. I mean really people would have more respect for social mores if there was fallout immediatly after their actions. So by extension, when they know you can legally do nothing but verbally reprimand them, where is the deterrent. I bet people would put a lot more thought into their words if the person they were talking to could legally put a fist in their teeth! And voila! Decreased bullying!
_________________
"The only thing to fear is fear itself"! |
|
| Back to top |
|
Jkid
Phoenix
Joined: Jan 20, 2008
Posts: 551
Location: College Park,MD
|
| Posted: Sat Apr 28, 2012 8:52 pm Post subject: Re: Just more of the thought police |
|
|
The law could have worked if it's merely a an amendment to a law on harassment. It's illegal to harass people in real life, so why not make it illegal to harass people via social networking sites where they have real names? What they needed to do is to separate internet forum trolling from social network harassment. If they made a clear exception for internet bulletin message boards who use pseudo-anonymous or anonymous regisation, I would be fine with the law.
Simply: Make it illegal to harass people via real life, or via social networking sites such as facebook or linkedin, or via phone or electronic phone, or via text messaging services over the phone. Make a clear exception for public electronic forum systems.
The reason why the law failed is that we are now consider trolling as both harassment over social networking sites and trolling for a reaction on message forums. It's not the same.
| Aspiegirl7 wrote: | | I love that penn n teller video, it makes the point perfectly. And as I think about it, bullying is on the rise I think because of our permissive and increasingly non-violence espousing. Society. I mean really people would have more respect for social mores if there was fallout immediatly after their actions. So by extension, when they know you can legally do nothing but verbally reprimand them, where is the deterrent. I bet people would put a lot more thought into their words if the person they were talking to could legally put a fist in their teeth! And voila! Decreased bullying! |
Are you fully aware that penn and teller's arguments are primarily social libertarian in nature. |
|
| Back to top |
|
vampresstcullen
Yellow-bellied Woodpecker
Joined: Jul 24, 2010
Posts: 59
|
| Posted: Sat Apr 28, 2012 9:05 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| heavenlyabyss wrote: | There's no such thing as a troll. Troll is just a euphemism for a bully.
The law will never hold up. We can't even prosecute bullies in real life. How the hell are we going to prosecute internet bullies? I'm not saying they shouldn't be punished but it's not practical. The problem can't be solved through punishment, it can only be solved through mass societal change. |
No, I think there are different types of trolling, if you call them all bullies you make a joke out of the word. Some people complain about over use and call people whiners because of this... I believe people will say things to strangers on the internet to annoy or offend them and cause conflict, as it's different for the person saying it as well as the recipient... in most cases... that's why someone with a stop the hate group could even be a troll every once in a while on the internet. (exceptions are someone from school. Saying pretty offensive things to them on the internet will feel the same way as if you'd said it to them at school, and plus they could be talking about who said something to you at school too so it affects your real life.. it's also different from trolling for the person saying rude things to someone they know and see at school). |
|
| Back to top |
|
Asp-Z
Clockwork Planet
Joined: Dec 07, 2009
Posts: 11016
|
| Posted: Sat Apr 28, 2012 9:12 pm Post subject: Re: Just more of the thought police |
|
|
| Jkid wrote: | The law could have worked if it's merely a an amendment to a law on harassment. It's illegal to harass people in real life, so why not make it illegal to harass people via social networking sites where they have real names? What they needed to do is to separate internet forum trolling from social network harassment. If they made a clear exception for internet bulletin message boards who use pseudo-anonymous or anonymous regisation, I would be fine with the law.
Simply: Make it illegal to harass people via real life, or via social networking sites such as facebook or linkedin, or via phone or electronic phone, or via text messaging services over the phone. Make a clear exception for public electronic forum systems.
The reason why the law failed is that we are now consider trolling as both harassment over social networking sites and trolling for a reaction on message forums. It's not the same. |
I don't think it's the medium that needs attention, but rather the extent of the trolling.
The real issue is that "trolling" is a very broad term. It can mean simply posting stupid things on a forum to get a reaction or it can mean tracking down someone's personal details, posting them online, and encouraging people to join in on harassment.
The distinction between the two isn't the type of site they're done on (it may be more difficult, but you can track people down from forums, especially if they've posted photos of themselves), but rather the actions taken by the troll. Therefore, for such a law to work, you'd have to distinguish between what is actual harassment and what is a little joke. This should be quite easy to do, really - just apply current harassment laws without adding anything draconian on the top like the law described in the OP did.
In the UK, using the Communications Act 2003 to deal with trolls is becoming more common. This, however, is also controversial because it's quite bad at making that distinction between what should be taken seriously and what shouldn't. If I make a joke about a celebrity via Twitter, I could go to jail under that law. It's stupid. The law, therefore, also has to make sure that "harassment" is defined as something severe to deserve jail time. Again, not adding draconian crap onto the definition of harassment would do that job well.
IANAL, but that's my two cents anyway. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
|
|
