Trolling, Free Speech and the Law

I don't think the cases that have drawn attention have been on persons' pages — they've been on pages dedicated to an event or a person, which are more public, on Facebook at least*

edited 27th Mar '12 9:22:41 AM by Greenmantle

Huh, I guess I never considered the idea of the "Person page" being used as a harassment method. That would suck a lot.

I have opinions on the whole Driven to Suicide thing that may not be relevant to his conversation. Let's just say that I believe people need to be held more responsible for their own actions, and less blame needs to be placed on others, "the environment," and "society."

But that would, by logical extension, include using social media to attack another person, right? Responsibility for one's actions shouldn't mean, "I can say whatever the hell I please about you, but if you get upset about it, you're at fault."

Responsibility lies on both sides of the equation, but more so on the harasser than the harassee. You don't blame the guy who got shot for dying, do you? ("I didn't kill him, failing to not bleed out like a pussy killed him.") You blame the guy who shot him. Words can be as deadly as weapons.

edited 27th Mar '12 9:32:36 AM by Fighteer

Depends on what the retaliation is. If the person being abused or bullied responds in kind with similar messages or whatever, no problem. If the bullied person goes to the other guy's house and kicks the shit out of him, good for him handling it old-school, but just don't get caught. If he ends up killing the other guy, or killing himself, that's crossing the line and I don't see that the bully is responsible for either action.

edited 27th Mar '12 9:31:47 AM by Martello

I edited my post. "Retaliation" was the wrong word to use there.

The way I see it is that, once you decide to bully someone, you are responsible for the entire sequence of events that follows. Other actors may be responsible to a lesser degree, but you get the lion's share of whatever punishment or judgment follows.

Fighting back against a bully should be classified as self-defense in all but the most egregious of cases. If you bully someone and they commit suicide, you should be held liable as if for murder, barring extenuating circumstances.

edited 27th Mar '12 9:54:58 AM by Fighteer

People are responsible for what they say. If someone says something that is knowingly false, intended to cause emotional, physical or social harm to a person or just to annoy people then they should be held responsible for it.

The right to piss doesn't give you the right to piss in my swimming pool, know what I mean?

The internet's just a tool for communicating and we already have laws that protect people from assholes abusing means of communicating. Obviously like any legal matter people can go to far and make mistakes but that doesn't give people the magical right to be dicks.

Part of the problem might be that Laws to prevent people being dicks are made MUCH slower that ways people come up with to be dicks.

An Act of Congress could take years. Being a dick can be spur of the moment.

(This sounds so much like a set up for a Team America: World Police speech)

edited 27th Mar '12 10:20:54 AM by Natasel

Harassment and bullying are very different from "being mean". I chose my words carefully for a reason, taking the piss is still acceptable. What Duffy and Stacy did was being far worse than just being mean.

Freedom of Speech =/= freedom from consequence

In all honesty, we live in a society where too many people want to be able to do whatever they want to whoever they want whenever they want, with no negative consequences. Human nature, not just the law, dictates this is a bad idea.

Still jailing someone for being a dick and saying dumb racist crap on a twitter or something is ridiculously over the top. While people need to learn how to be more responsible for what they say(especially in the E-age), this isn't something worth jailing someone over. Now if he had said that to the guy IRL to his face and triggered a fight resulting in some sort of severe damage over it, then yeah his jailing(or fining) would be justified. But in this case the punishment should've been given to him by his college or something. Jail time is a bit too much, though I don't feel sorry for him either.

Now the second case...not sure if I can defend that one. In a way it's similar to the above(except even more tasteless and he kept doing it) but on the other hand he really deserved it, since he apparently he thinks mocking a family's grief is worth some cheap laughs from people he doesn't even know. I have zero sympathy for trolls, sorry.

You say "if he had said that to the guy IRL to his face and triggered a fight resulting in some sort of severe damage over it, then yeah his jailing(or fining) would be justified." What makes it different whether or not he says it in person or online, whether or not it triggers a fight or something?

Speech is speech. We tend to think we're insulated from its effects because we're online rather than in person, but that's GIFT in operation. It doesn't reflect reality.

This would be a lot easier to make a decision on if "harassment" had a nice, clean definition.

I do think that speech that actually causes tangible harm to a person (like causing them to lose their job or get beat up) should be punished. I'm less in favor of punishing people for hurting others feelings, though. It may sound harsh, but I do feel that how a person responds to verbal abuse is largely their own responsibility.

From the Protection from Harassment Act 1997

edited 27th Mar '12 1:27:39 PM by whaleofyournightmare

What's going to happen to this poor guy? He going to go to jail for this, how do you think this is going to effect his future.

edited 27th Mar '12 8:37:43 PM by joeyjojo

That's what I mean. Under that definition, calling someone an idiot for believing that the Earth is flat could be considered harassment. Or, to use a more extreme example, calling a Nazi a terrible person.

As far as e-harassment goes, I do have one thing to point out; simply staying off social media can work for now, but as we become more connected that starts to be less and less of an option. Fighteer pointed out a few cases already where it's at the least not a pleasant choice. This is a real issue, part of the growing pains of the Internet; it needs to be addressed now while people have the choice of avoiding it.

Also, having to limit your daily activities because of someone being a dick is annoying...and there being no legal recourse means that you the victim are being forced to do something by the law (in this case the absence of a law, but the point still stands), which is avoid a person place or thing because of someone else's behavior.

Now, in my own person I'm all for personal responsibility and standing up for oneself...I believe people too often forfeit this option and allow situations to continue when simply summoning up some spine would go a long way towards fixing the problem. Assholes exist, and part of growing up is learning how to handle them effectively. At the least, stand up for yourself. In a civilized society, what are they likely to do? Shoot you? Bullies are at heart cowards, and no coward likes being calmly called on the carpet.

Fighteer made some good points about fragile teenage psyches awhile back, and I'd agree with reservations; sure, growing up is a shitty time all around, especially when you add not being able to leave school behind when you go home (yay connected-ness). But verbal slings and stones are gonna hit you eventually, and every individual needs a box of coping skills for that inevitability.

We've pretty much come to the place we always come to in these kinda debates, and that is "where do you draw the line, and who gets to draw it?"

@joey: What's going to happen is he's going to learn that being a racist will get you ostracized by most of civilized society.

@0dd1: I think he has figured that one out by now.

Does the man man really deserves jail and a life long record because he was a racist little shit? Isn't that punishment enough?

edited 27th Mar '12 10:08:52 PM by joeyjojo

To your first question: Yup.

Why? Why shouldn't he have the right to be a racist if he wants to be? As long as he's not harming anyone (hurt feelings should not legally count as harm, due to being nothing but subjective), it's his right to do what he wants. Who does he hurt? Judging by his isolation, only himself.

Sticks and stones may break my bones, but words can never hurt me.

It's amazing how many people want to disagree and say words are worse, yet have never been part of a stoning.

...have you?

No, of course not. That'd be awful.

But I don't have to be for my point to make sense.

Well, unless a stoning's actually awesome and I just don't know it. I have heard it's pretty great to be stoned.

Psychological damage can last for well over 30 years, if done right. A good stoning kills you horribly over maybe 2 hours if done with cruelty.

30 years of hell vs. 2 hours... you choose.

EDIT: I guess what I'm saying is that words can hurt for longer than sticks and stones (and sometimes kill you). But the sticks and stones can kill you quicker.

edited 28th Mar '12 12:32:00 AM by Euodiachloris

Uh, you get to live and can maybe get a Therapist sometime in that 30 years.

Getting stoned to death in 2 hours is kind of permanent.

I agree with this law. Obviously, just saying something mean over the internet shouldn't result in legal action, any more than just saying something mean in real life would, but the two examples given in the OP crossed a line. These men didn't just say something and someone took offence, they deliberately set out to upset people. And the sentences aren't ridiculous, they're just enough to teach them a lesson.