Trolling, Free Speech and the Law

Today, a man called Liam Stacy was jailed for 56 days for making repeated racist comments about the footballer Fabrice Muamba.

Last year, a man called Sean Duffy was jailed for repeated taunting the relatives of dead people and posting video on virtual shrine pages on Face Book

Now it is a crime in this country to harass someone through the Communications Act 2003 section 127.

Source

Now, I ask, where should the right to free speech end?

In my country, the right to free speech ends when you start deliberately offending and upsetting someone, and seemingly, this is being applied to the internet.

Dutch Lesbian

Harrasment and being an objectionable dick generally is illegal to begin with, the fact that you're online shouldn't make any more difference than it would if you were making harrasing phonecalls, for example.

EDIT - Forgot a word.

edited 27th Mar '12 9:59:49 AM by TheBatPencil

And let us pray that come it may (As come it will for a' that)

What Bat Pencil said. It's illegal if you do it in person, through the mail, over the phone, or by taking out an ad in a newspaper. Why should it be legal to do it on the Internet?

...if you don’t love you’re dead, and if you do, they’ll kill you for it.

Frankly, regarding these people being jailed about it, I say "Good!"

Trolls (especially the racist, sexist, whatever-ist ones) are the scum of the internet anyway, so the more they can be lessened, the (somewhat) less hostile the internet can be.

Also, and , agreed.

edited 27th Mar '12 5:49:37 AM by 0dd1

Insert witty and clever quip here. My page, as the database hates my handle.

Danger, Will Robinson!

People can choose to be deliberately offended and upset. That's the reason they went after Hamza Kashgari. A more sensible standard is when you compromise people's ability to ignore you.

Share it so that people can get into this conversation, 'cause we're not the only ones who think like this.

Y'all just butthurt.

Jesting aside, I totally agree with arresting the dude mocking the dead kids. Dude, Not Funny!. And racist trolling is just stupid.

Big surprise there.

....

ASPERGERS IS NOT AN EXCUSE. JESUS.

edited 27th Mar '12 6:12:52 AM by inane242

The 5 geek social fallacies. Know them well.

Harassment is an infringement of the victim's freedom and health (mental in the current case) so it should be fought legally, no matter the medium.

"And as long as a sack of shit is not a good thing to be, chivalry will never die."

You have to define the actions that constitute harassment more clearly, or else you'll have them throwing American Atheists and PFLAG in jail for "offending and disturbing people".

Share it so that people can get into this conversation, 'cause we're not the only ones who think like this.

The way I see it, on one hand, you should never be punished more than you gave out, so saying words shouldn't warrant anything beyond further words. But on the other hand, context is everything. There are some contexts where words can hurt more than physical pain, and in those contexts, jail is acceptable.

We do need more defined standards of what constitutes as "trolling," but then again, the actual definition of trolling covers it really well. Pissing people off with no intent other than to piss people off sounds like something that you should be jailed for. And how do you tell what someone's intent is? Well, it's in the words they use. When you pay attention to how one words a sentence, intention can be very blatant.

If we made this the legal definition of trolling and made trolling an offense punishable by law, this would also serve as a reason for cultural standards to increase. If people realize how you really can convey entire emotions and intentions just by wording a sentence carefully, more people will put more value to the English language and try to.. well, word sentences better! And eventually, we'd get to the point where "I'm bad at wording sentences" is no excuse.

..but my opinions vary a lot, so take what I say with a grain of salt.

tout est sacré pour un sacreur (Avatar by Rappu!)

A society where civility is enforced by law? Well, I suppose there are worse things... like getting shot.

"It's Occam's Shuriken! If the answer is elusive, never rule out ninjas!"

I'm genuinely ashamed of coming from the UK because of this.

edited 27th Mar '12 6:38:58 AM by joeyjojo

hashtagsarestupid

Why Joey?

How do you mean by that?

So harassment victims should suck it up?

Dutch Lesbian

What I mean is that getting arrested for incivility is better than getting shot for it. Which can happen in some places. I'm still not sure I'm comfortable with the idea of making "being an asshole" a criminal offense, though.

"It's Occam's Shuriken! If the answer is elusive, never rule out ninjas!"

Seems like a difficult balancing act.

On one hand, being extremely repressive about Free Speech is usually seen as a bad thing.

ex: Gallaleio's sun centered solar system idea and his jailing.

However, TOO MUCH of a good thing (Free Speech) can arguably lead to Trolls that are allowed by Law to be unpleasant.

ex: Seriously, who HASN'T met a Troll yet?

Even the issue of who gets to draw the line (if it can be done at all) is going to be contraversial.

Best I can come up with is allowing people to live under laws of Free Speech and Repression of their choice.

Of course this is easier said than done, and moving to another country is a rather drastic step.

The United States came up with a pretty good compromise when they came up with 1st amendment. IMHO.

Congress shall pass to no law abridging the freedom of speech. Full stop. Not no law as long as everyone is nice. No laws. Ever.

The British legal system once held such lofty notions of the value of liberty as well. But alas they decided that 'being mean' should now be a jailable offense. 

It's pathetic, it really is. I'm gonna go off and burn my birth certificate in shame.

edited 27th Mar '12 7:39:57 AM by joeyjojo

hashtagsarestupid

The act of harassment by its nature tries to be difficult to ignore. That's why I said "makes it hard to ignore" should be the standard, not "makes someone uncomfortable". Harassment interferes with work, study, or other responsibilities, making it difficult for the harassed to steer clear of the problematic speech unless they do something unreasonable (like quit, or give the sexual harasser a blowjob, or whatever), and thus the harassed have a very good case to argue against harassment even under the standard I propose.

Share it so that people can get into this conversation, 'cause we're not the only ones who think like this.

I honestly prefer the U.S. system, where saying dickish things is legal as long as you don't actually threaten somebody or incite violence. "Offensive" speech is too hard to define and puts you on a slippery slope.

edited 27th Mar '12 8:05:25 AM by RTaco

Exactly. Free speech is too important to risk limiting it to prevent people from being offended.

"Did anybody invent this stuff on purpose?" - Phillip Marlowe on tequila, Finger Man by Raymond Chandler.

There are two elements here. One is your right to speak freely. The other is my right to be free from unwelcome speech (aka privacy).

In a public place, you can say what you wish as long as you don't run afoul of established precedents like inciting violence, hate speech, etc. However, you are not allowed to pursue me and intrude upon my home, business, or place of worship should I not permit you to do so.

Further, we label certain types of speech as libel or slander when they are knowingly false and made with intent to injure. We also identify speech as harassing when, in aggregate, it creates a hostile work or school environment.

When the Internet gets involved, it raises the question of what exactly constitutes a private vs. public space. If you're writing malicious things about me on Facebook, even if they aren't posted on my wall, is that harassment? I would say yes, especially if it's intended to cause harm.

Personally, I would say that a person should not expect the right of free speech protection when they make knowingly false statements. Also, protected speech is a government thing. You are not protected by the First Amendment in your workplace, your home, or on a social networking site.

edited 27th Mar '12 8:22:55 AM by Fighteer

"It's Occam's Shuriken! If the answer is elusive, never rule out ninjas!"

The Freedom of Speech probably needs a counter part in this day and age.

The Right to Ignore!

Sound good?

I overall agree with Fighteer here. Also, most cases when one person in particular is targeted are likely to be harassment, especially if this person is not a "public person" (actor, politician, etc.; what we call "People" (in English) in French.)

edited 27th Mar '12 8:45:29 AM by Medinoc

"And as long as a sack of shit is not a good thing to be, chivalry will never die."

I don't think ignoring things is hard enough that laws need to get involved.

You can't ignore repeated phone calls or intrusions into your home. You can't ignore petitions for your boss to fire you, links to CP in your blog's comments, etc.

edited 27th Mar '12 8:46:50 AM by Medinoc

"And as long as a sack of shit is not a good thing to be, chivalry will never die."

I more or less agree with Fighteer, yeah. Facebook is kind of a gray area because on the one hand, it's your personal profile and you shouldn't have to take harassment there any more than on your private cell phone or inside your house. But on the other hand, there are plenty of ways to make your profile more private or more public, and if you choose to make it more public, can you really complain when some dickcheese comes along and starts leaving trollish wall comments? Set everything to "Friends" and make your profile non-viewable without an accepted friend request, and you shouldn't have that problem. If you made the mistake of accepting the asshole's fried request and he starts leaving comments, well, the "Unfriend" button is pretty easy to find. You can also just make your profile non-searchable. Or, if you really want to be private, just stay off Facebook.

edited 27th Mar '12 8:50:32 AM by Martello

"Did anybody invent this stuff on purpose?" - Phillip Marlowe on tequila, Finger Man by Raymond Chandler.

That Facebook advice isn't really workable in some cases, because even if you aren't friends with the person harassing you, the harassment is still occurring. Kids have been subjected to vicious social bullying without a single post to their own Wall, and it can be devastating to find out that your "friends" were bashing you behind their backs. Of such things are teenage neuroses and suicides made.

Many classrooms go so far as to make use of social networks mandatory to class activities, meaning you can't stay off even if you want to. And given that your peers are likely doing it, you are effectively cut out of your social circle if you don't participate.

As to whether these things are legally actionable... consider the case of the girl who was Driven to Suicide by her "friend's" mom posing as a boy and building a relationship with her, then maliciously yanking the rug out.

Cyberbullying is a very real and serious problem, no less than the "regular" bullying it is derived from. The need for a sense of belonging is critical to the developing psyche of a teenager, and exploiting it can cause real, tangible harm.

edited 27th Mar '12 9:14:50 AM by Fighteer

"It's Occam's Shuriken! If the answer is elusive, never rule out ninjas!"