Trolling, Free Speech and the Law

@M84- it depends on whether its a credible threat. Someone shouting to random passers by that "Demarquis should be killed" is not a credible threat, and shouldnt be illegsl. Someone giving out my name and address for the purpose of encouraging someone to kill me is a credible threat, and needs to be illegal.

I think that's the crux of it. Nothing is "obvious" to me. I don't want anything to be.

I want to believe in things because I have seen convincing evidence and heard convincing arguments for them, and because I have seen the arguments against them and found them lacking.

If all I had heard about climate change (to use that as an example) while growing up had been that it was "obviously" happening and that questioning it would make me a horrible person, and everything I knew about climate change deniers came from caricatures and strawmen made by their opponents, it would only have served to make me curious.

In this case it would be less "DeMarquis should be killed" and more "People with black and red avatars are violent and dangerous" or something. And I think that the proper response to that would be a calm "Prove it or leave me alone" rather than a furious "Shut up or else!"

I say physical because there's a key difference between one's online life and one's physical (as in, meatspace) life. You can just turn off your computer, move accounts, or go anonymous. I don't think comparing online harrassment/abuse to physical harassment/abuse is at all valid. In fact, I find it a little offensive to those who have suffered from physical abuse/harassment.

From prior experience, it's not generally a pleasant thing when people follow you between sites to try and force you to quit a hobby and far from acceptable.

If nothing on either side is obvious to you, the problem is with you and not the rest of the world.

Yeah, online abuse has led to documented cases of suicide, so the consequences of either can be very serious.

Exactly.

For a lot of people, there is no clear divide (if there ever was). What you experience emotionally happens in Meat Space, regardless of what you got involved with digitally.

And, these days, there is just so much overlap as it is...

Even small amounts of isolated trolling and abuse mounts up if an individual receives it every fifteen minutes for months or years at a time from a raft of people, coordinated or not.

edited 21st Aug '17 10:51:44 AM by Euodiachloris

I'm not saying it's acceptable behavior. Heck, I'm not saying it's a thing a decent person should do. Like I said, I'm pretty old school when it comes to the Internet. I always use temporary emails to sign up for sites, different usernames, I even say I'm from different parts of the country. I make it a habit to separate my online lives from my public persona, and I think that everyone who's worried about online harassment and trolling should do the same.

Even if you shame these people and call them out, even if you dox them, they'll keep coming and others like them. You can roll with the punches and accept that these are crappy people who, like it or not, you will inevitably come in contact with. They're responsible for their actions, but you're responsible for yours.

You originally said that online trolling is fine until it gets physical.

And all of those methods are seriously underestimating how much people can do when they want to cause you problems—plus keeping online and offline lives entirely separate only gets harder without even getting into some things that require being online to do.

These days, employers like to see a Facebook, Twitter or other online presence to confirm you are who you say you are and believe what you say you believe... Being Anon won't do. :/

edited 21st Aug '17 11:01:53 AM by Euodiachloris

Allow me to amend my previous statement: I think that trolling should be considered par the course for online culture until it gets physical. I apologize for any confusion that caused. (I swear I'm not a monster.) It's going to happen. That doesn't mean it's right, but it's going to happen.

On the issue of anonymity, I've had no issue securing employment without social media profiles, and I'm a recent college graduate. And I've found that even basic steps like the ones I've listed help but not entirely prevent more nasty trolls. I could share more tips if you like.

Dude, I was there when netiquette was getting off the ground...

But, I'm being serious: I and other people I know have failed to gain interviews because if tending to avoid real name, real place. And, as social media sites become more conglomerate and interconnected... Being grisly anon is going to go out the window, even with things like Tor.

Everybody leaves breadcrumbs somebody can track.

edited 21st Aug '17 11:09:33 AM by Euodiachloris

Hey, just wanted to thank everyone for keeping it civil about my views on this topic. I really do appreciate it. And I'm legitimately sorry that you've had trouble getting interviews and job positions because of your lack of social media presence. That's rough, I know. I hope you and yours are gainfully employed now, for what it's worth.

I've always seen the Internet as a kind of Wild West where people can shed their public personas and their insecurities under the veil of anonymity. Heck, one of my cousins was able to come to terms with his gender identity in part through his connection with /lgbt/, and I'm proud of him for it. I know that this sort of view has become more and more antiquated, especially as corporate interests and public attention has started to come into play more and more, but I can't help but stick to my guns on this.

Here's a tip: don't downplay the harmful effects of online trolling or say anything that might be construed as Victim Blaming. Nowadays, trolling is less insulting and aggravating comments on messageboards and forums and more dedicated harassment campaigns and stalking.

Given how easy it is to create a profile based on one's semi-anonymous online behaviour, even across accounts (how do you think sockpuppets get caught?) and compare it with someone's actual personality and behavior offline, as demonstrated by a certain HanAssholeSolo, that became obsolete a long time ago.

edited 21st Aug '17 12:06:10 PM by Krieger22

Yes, that is obviously a flaw on my part. Could you do me a favor and list some of the things that I should immediately accept without questioning them?

That genocide is wrong?

So we're back to "minorities must come up with reasons to justify their continued existence" are we? Because ultimately, if all things must be argued for, that's what you are saying, and your prior insistence that "genocide is bad" is some sort of dangerous moral absolute doesn't give me a lot of reason to think otherwise.

No one should ever be put in the position of having to justify their right to be alive, and to put someone in that position is to utterly violate their dignity as a human being.

I think that genocide - or even just murder in general - is completely fucking awful. And I can give you a long and detailed explanation of why I think that. I also think that the justifications I have heard for genocide (real ones at least; Always Chaotic Evil fantasy races and such are a different can of worms) were either just flat-out false, or at best petty excuses that wouldn't even come close to justifying something so extreme.

How did you discover that genocide was "wrong"?

Strange, that kind of sounds like an argument to me.

edited 21st Aug '17 1:04:36 PM by Corvidae

I didn't need to—and I'd bet Raineh didn't either. Because I'm not the sort of person who needs to have "murder is bad" explained to me. And nice quotation marks around "wrong".

And of course the amusing part here is that by talking about "justifying something so extreme" you're making the exact sort of moral judgement that you've been decrying others for making.If all things are arguable that includes the supposed sanctity of human life.

Maybe you're prepared to grant that premise. Maybe you're prepared to tell members of minority communities that they need to spend the rest of their lives walking around with a list of arguments about why they have a right to live, just in case a neo-Nazi or Klansman wants to contest that right. I'm not.

Oh, what a devastating "gotcha" moment. On a more serious note, I made no argument, I stated a fact. That you see an argument stems from the way you choose to approach the issue, not anything I said.

edited 21st Aug '17 2:37:48 PM by AmbarSonofDeshar

Extreme and dangerous courses of action are wrong unless proved necessary. That is, without good reason for why they should ever be taken then we have no need to consider them.

Consequently, no argument is needed that genocide is wrong, and the arguments given for it are so stupid there's no point listening to them.

People are innocent until proven guilty, not ideas.

edited 21st Aug '17 1:16:09 PM by RainehDaze

The burden of proof thing is a good point. You should have mentioned that right away instead of all this "just because" stuff.

If people are making objective claims in support of killing you, "Evidence or gtfo" is more than enough.

I agree that they're stupid, but that's kind of hard to know without listening to them. If I against all odds happened to live in an insane reality where minority group X really were a threat to humanity as a whole and I somehow hadn't noticed, I would very much like someone to prove that to me.

It would look exactly the same as every crackpot explanation given and would be discarded anyway. Also, still not a suitable argument for the action proposed.

Essentially, the slim chance we live in some dystopian novel where a minority group is an existential threat is so remote that there's no need to listen to arguments in favour of genocide. It's an unnecessary step.

It works out to exactly the same thing. Some things are based on such a self-evidently flawed premise that there is no rational argument that will support them—and any what-if scenarios to support it are as likely as the moon being made of cheese or my single-handedly conquering the world.

edited 21st Aug '17 2:51:14 PM by RainehDaze

First off, no "objective claim" can be made in support of exterminating an entire people. Secondly, no. Just no. Minorities are not obligated to join in any sort of debate with people who are calling for their extermination.

The topic of exterminating your fellow man is beyond the parameters of rational debate. It cannot be done.

But you don't And you never have and never will. Also, are you really saying that racists should be allowed to call for genocide on the off chance that they're right?

edited 21st Aug '17 8:42:46 PM by AmbarSonofDeshar

Man, what is it about this thread and people saying "we should debate genocide!"

I don't know, particularly because embracing the idea that there might be a valid argument for genocide means that you're considering it as acceptable.