Not trolling

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-berkshire-14894576

This guy was not trolling he was being an asshole.

"Duffy, of Grovelands Road, admitted two offences of 'trolling' a term used to describe the trend of anonymously seeking to provoke outrage by posting insults and abuse online."

I think its safe to say that for most of us "trolling" is nothing near what this idiot does. He had enough free time and enough interest in this girl to make a video poking fun at her death. Trolling isnt meant to cause someone to kill themself (although if it affects you that much just close the damn broser) its meant to tease people and have some fun. This was just an idiot being an ass and the media labeling it as "trolling" and eventually propaganda that the internet is a dark, scary place filled with rapists, murderers, and cute animal videos that pop up on news sites from time to time. I find it irritating that what this guy did got called trolling and not extreme bullying or harassment.

What an asshole. Discuss.

he didn't cause them to kill themselves; it wasn't reported that he did anything before they died.

there's a blurred line between teasing and abusing, and this guy completely crossed it. This needs to by classified as something other than trolling, maybe "abusive trolling" or something like that. Such disrespect should be severely punished, as this really should never happen again. The worst part about this is that he didn't even apologize, he just pleaded innocent

Isn't that level 4 trolling?

I don't think he should have gone to prison though. I can't really find a place to start my arguement, but I'm pretty sure that worse things have been done that don't land people in jail.

Also, you say that this isn't trolling, but bullying? I'm not sure if people here have noticed but trolls aren't meant to be nice. What I've noticed, especially in IB that 'cool story bro' qualifies as trolling, well it's not.

I don't really want to say much since I have a lot of feelings, be that unpleasant, that I have to say.

Edit: since this is mostly about the topic of trolling, I don't think it should be in SD.

Trolling is meant to cause someone to feel bad and troll back, but this guy didn't know when to quit. He needs to understand when to stop. Mental torture, by far, has more damaging effects to a person than physical abuse.

If you ask me, it only depends on a person's perspective about trolling and bullying. This guy might have viewed it as trolling while her parents saw it as bullying/abuse. It might also be the only reason why they can't filter these stuff out. I mean, a program can't decide that. They spend their time more on productive things rather than finding trolls and trolling posts.

I don't really care if he has problems of his own but it didn't give him any right to dish out crap about people. He was also insensitive to the victim's parents. Who/Whatever brought him up would be ashamed.

Conclusion: That guy was a bastard and should stripped of human rights (seeing that he has no humane characteristics).

When I read articles like OP's and this. I can't help but, ponder when I'll be incarcerated for saying someone isn't attractive or sucks at a particular video game.

It's is pretty obvious on where I stand on this subject. I believe the English Government was wrong by punishing a man's right to freedom of speech. I personally find what the man did abominable, in the poorest of tastes and personally view him as a despicable human being but, I believe he has a right to act like an insensitive prick. Otherwise by effect of mission creep we can find ourselves prohibited from criticizing someone for the most mundane reasons.

I will always support freedom of speech even if I personally hate what the other person is saying.

[font=verdana][color=green]Now, whilst I agree with most of your sentiments, I do not believe that freedom of speech should be stretched too far.

If we allowed anyone to say anything about anyone/anything, it ignores the victim's mindset at the insults. Legally, one can and will be punished if the victim suffers psychological harm, which might have been a possibility if the trolling was allowed to continue. Do you still believe that trolling shouldn't be punished if, let's say, the victim of the trolling was to suffer depression over the comments? Depression is a legal form of psychological harm in England and would be punished if the person had it said it not anonymously, so why should the internet provide the trolls a barrier? Whether the offence be actual bodily harm or grievous bodily harm depends on the severity of the psychological harm, but trolls could still be guilty of attempting those crimes, even if the victim felt insulted or not.

Also, let's look at another scenario. Let's just say...that I'm walking around my town with an iPhone and you troll one of my deceased relatives (which I have none of by the way, but it's relevant to the topic link). Let's say that I, in a blind fit of rage or sadness, run out into the road and get ploughed down by a car. Am I at fault or you? Looking at it legally, there is still a possibility that you are guilty, by way of the But For rule. "But for" your comments online, I wouldn't have had run into the road like I did, and therefore wouldn't have been hit by the car. But, because you're anonymous, does it mean that you should get off scot-free?

Again, just because you're anonymous, that doesn't mean that you should be allowed entire freedom of speech and, by extension, freedom of legal responsibility for your actions? Heck, not even I'm allowed that privilege in real life. The internet should not be a grounds to avoid laws. The internet is already a hotbed of illegal downloads.

I'm glad that the person was punished for his actions. Maybe it will make people actually think for the person they are posting to before they actually post their hurtful comments. This is bullying, and bullying should not and will not be tolerated. This is a grand day for internet users like myself; this is one step to a more pleasant internet.

We agree 80-90% here but, the differences are; I believe the English Government was premature in their arrest. Once "damages" have occurred the victim is allowed to seek restitution. If no "damages" are caused and people are simply offended/whatever then no damages have occurred and legal action is not called for.



With how broadly the legal arguments for "anti-trolling" legislation are worded. The act of my posting a "U Mad Bro" image is technically grounds for me to be incarcerated. Which is asinine as the ramifications of that action are solely based on the "victims" emotional response. The image if posted towards me wouldn't affect me one iota yet, someone else could be so distressed that I could be incarcerated.





We'll never agree on this particular subject. I hold the internet as a sacred bastion of free speech. I shall quote Oscar Wilde to enlighten you to my views on the anonymity of the internet.



It is only when we are anonymous that we are truly capable of expressing ourselves freely. The anonymity frees us from the fear of social repercussions and through that anonymity frees us from the prying eyes of big brother who would be pleased to silence the dissenters.



A "more pleasant internet" is a subjective term. I find it less pleasant knowing that my political dissension will soon be no longer protected by my relative anonymity, this is due to forces I oppose using this man as an example of why I need a license to use the internet. I'm glad the asshole has been removed from society. The man didn't really need to go to jail, being an asshole isn't really a crime and the family should have just followed legal channels to seek restitution for damages.

I would say its no ones fault. The person who decides to step out in front of that car controls their own fate. Yes the person who said/wrote the thing is a contributing factor but they shouldn't be tried as if they shoved someone out onto a highway. If anything I would put it as tempting them to go out there (think 3 year old noticing lollipop and not the bear trap its in).

I disagree with the "but for" point as well. Its like saying someone's boss is at fault for firing someone who then kills them self.



I would say this is why its very hard to make rules much less legislation on speech. Every school I've been to has some sort of policy on bullying/hazing/harassment/etc but very very rarely have I actually seen it in use. Things like sarcasm and teasing make it difficult to judge.

For example, one of my friends is pretty lazy and I tease them about it from time to time. For all I know they could kill them self tonight and I could be blamed by forcing them to do so by ridiculing their lazyness. Thats just plain stupid to think I was be responsible for that. Its true I had something to do with it but I shouldnt be seen as the person stabbing my friend in the back or whatever.

A poorly made "anti-trolling" legislation would make me a criminal for such a thing if I wrote it on facebook.



I agree. He needs like one of those places where a drug addict would move into to get clean. Jail has a habit of doing very little other than removing the person from sight.

In general, Fiery_penguin_of_doom I agree that the internet should remain as anonymous as it is today. The way it is now promotes free intelligent speech in all fields regardless of location (most locations),demographic,etc. If the internet wasn't anonymous picture your name being next to everything you post online. For this site in particular alot of us would possibly be looked at differently by neighbors/coworkers/etc. Stuff like "You know Fiery_penguin_of_doom has an incest fetish? What a pervert!" would happen for example. If that day ever comes I would never go online again. The internet should be like voting, no one knows what box you checked in the booth except you. However in cases of people like this guy (the guy I was referring to in my 1st post) some sort of "internet etiquette" is required. Love the Oscar Wilde quote btw.

Please, save your fingers, call me FPoD.



I never even thought of that, my loli-fetish would be public knowledge. Since the current social views in American equate loli to child porn. I'd be forced to register as a sex offender and be incarcerated for 10+ years.

That's cowardly and doesn't accomplish much.

I'm sorry you feel that way. If you care to elaborate on your position maybe we can come to an understanding.

I do wish to point out that, by that very post. You are utilizing the very aspect of anonymity that I was referring to. Would you prefer that every action you take online is broadcast like a Facebook post?

Since what I wanted to say were mostly said by FPoD anyway, I wont repeat them. I find the whole case seriously ridiculous. The guy is a dick alright, but really, the girl found it easier to commit suicide than to ignore him or maybe find someone to consult?

For starters the man wasn't trolling, he was defiling a dead person's memory.(and I would get him tested for psychopathy)
But this is an interesting case from different PoVs, especially how the police invaded right to privacy for a infraction/misdemeanor of all cases.

"Free speech" should not include harassing and threatening speech. This was harassment, and he was rightly jailed for it.

Eh. He may have been taking it "too far" but maybe it was just "too soon".

I believe the same type of serenity with freedom of speech; the internet should be treated likewise.

As it stands this type of thing is far too vague.

The problem is people sometimes take on an ulterior persona to their RL counterparts, saying things and doing things they normally would not.

He won't stay in jail. Freedom of Speech will be on his side enough to save him from that.

At most he'll have to pay a fine for defamation of character. But that will be a civil suit not criminal.

At most they might get him for Harrassment, of course that might be difficult considering the places he was posting were public forums on the Internet.

It's the whole Phelps thing over again. It won't stick.

If he had done/said these things over the phone or through the mail he would have been charged with harrassment. how is it any different because it's on the internet? is this new fangled technology really that confusing to the law makers?

Well I was stating my opinions on the quote on Mr.Wilde. If your not willing to stand up for what you belief without wearing a mask that means you're too concern about yourself rather than the cause or what you belief in. Sure it's anonymity is fine if you want to talk to someone online...But what else? The only instance that I can remember where anonymous did anything was....protesting against Scientology. Hey let's not forget how the tried to punish Paypal, a private business, who decided that it wasn't in their best interest to continue serving Wikileaks. I'm not saying that the concept of anonymity is a bad thing that should be punished, but like anything in life, it will be abused by people with bad intentions.


Sometimes anonymous groups do bring light to issues that we wouldn't have known or cared about, but to often do major groups do something big that doesn't have the best of intentions, this then is used to justified the regulating of the internet more.



I wish to point out again that anonymity isn't bad, I was just saying that it's abused by cowards. If you really really want me to post this on facebook, I would if I had one....And people who would actually care. Also people can make anonymous accounts on facebook.....I've already stated my distaste for the negative parts of anonymity to people in college....whom I just met......But I think you're trying to make me seem like a hypocrite just for posting online..On my account ecruz737....Edward Cruz..........it's not this is 4chan or similar sites where there's plentiful of anonymous posters....You know you're talking to me.


Look I know the by itself anonymity isn't bad, but we all know it's easy to take advantage of. But if there's something you believe in strongly, more than likely anonymity won't help. You should stand up for what you believe in. I wonder how life today would be if all protesters in the past wore mask?



Staying on topic, although what he did was legal and protected by freedom of speech, does that mean was it right? Did his actions have no consequence, and if they did, how exactly to punish someone in this situation, or even if they should even be punished?

I mean his actions did have negative effects on others, but because it was online, does that make Mr.Duffy completely innocent?

I don't think he should have gone to jail....But...as I said, is it fair to let anyone do as they wish, even when it brings harm to others?

4channers used to do this shit all the time. Just look at the meme "an hero" - it's making fun of the death of Mitchell Henderson and the actions of his friends after his death. If you've ever said that someone be an hero, then you've referenced a teenager that committed suicide, and not in a very friendly way.

What the guy did was definitely wrong, but trolling is in the eye of the beholder. It's just like bullying; don't bullies sometimes say that what they're doing isn't serious, that they're not doing anything really wrong?

The truth is, you don't know how other people will react. Calling someone a fag may not be as big a thing as telling someone that their dead daughter thinks it's hot in hell, but the former can still hurt someone's feelings, a lot.

To me, a lot of people say that trolling is harmless just to justify their being assholes. If you're making fun of someone else, then that may be harmful. And isn't trying to upset someone the definition of trolling?

So, yeah, what this guy did was wrong, and it goes beyond what most would consider doing when trolling, but that is not to say that trolling is okay.

On the anonymity debate, I too think that a person should have the courage to take responsibility for what they say and do. Hiding behind the mask of anonymity may be the only way for some to "be themselves," but being afraid to be open about who you are is cowardly, and we should strive to be brave enough to walk around without a mask.

Also, I'm not sure, but I believe that Wilde was not being optimistic with the quote. It seems to me that he was pointing out one of man's many flaws.