Trolling, Free Speech and the Law

Rodger was part of one of those groups.

I was wrong in saying no internet trolls will cause physical harm. However I still think the vast majority of them are seeking only to cause emotional harm. This is still bad, but much more easy to deal with than direct violence.

And on your claim that "Also I think a few mass shooters have been found to have spent a lot of time on Red Pill and harassed and threatened women online.", is, I believe, false based on the research I've done into mass murderers. While Ambar points out that Roger was a part of one such group, he is the only case that I know of that participated in such a group, and at no point has evidence came out that Roger harassed women over the internet. The closest thing I can think of that's like what you're talking about is when Eric Harris posted threats to a classmate over the internet.

edited 28th Nov '17 3:08:00 PM by ThePest179

I beg to differ. Physical damage is easy to prove, prosecute, and heal, save for the gravest cases. Emotional damage can stay with you for life, and cost a shitload of time and effort to heal, especially if the harassment is sustained over time.

edited 28th Nov '17 3:12:17 PM by TheHandle

Well physical damage is not only an injury to your physical well-being and can cause death, but can cause emotional trauma as well. So I'd say it's worse.

Well, there's also the case of Lane Davis, an alt-righter who continuously spread bullshit and was part of the misogynistic GG movement who ended up killing his father in an argument. That's not a case of a threat being followed up on, but it does show an example of how these types of people aren't to be taken lightly. Sure, many of them are probably spineless cowards, but you never know when you're up against one that is going to follow up.

Also, whether intentionally or not, your posts make it sound like you're underestimating the effects of continuous harassment. Zoe Quinn did an interview a while back talking about how her life has been permanently damaged as a result of being singled out by these people. Everything that she was planning on doing, her goal to become a niche indie dev living in peaceful obscurtity, has been irrevocably compromised. Everything that she does that exists in the public space comes with numerous threats of harassment, stalking, and one day it's entirely plausible that she could be harmed by someone who's unhinged enough to follow up on their threats. Her entire life is never going to be the same again.

Even if physical violence never occurs, this type of concentrated harassment effort takes a very big mental toll on people and can lead to major mental health issues, or seriously exarcebate existing ones, in addition to compromising professional opportunities and affecting people's livelihood.

edited 28th Nov '17 3:32:50 PM by Draghinazzo

@Megaeliz- they even have a propaganda detector browser extension you can download. Cool.

That's not getting into guys like Roosh V, who publishes "how to get away with rape" tourist guides for various countries. Caamib, one of the "intellectual" leaders of the incel movement was arrested for assaulting a girl before he went online and became...whatever it is we would call him now; honestly I don't really have the words to describe the Attempted Motherfucker. Number of the other MRA/redpill/incel guys have bragged about committing domestic abuse or rape or planning to commit domestic abuse or rape.

In the end, it doesn't matter if physical damage is considered "worse" than emotional damage or not; it still doesn't change the fact that emotional damage can and does have devastating consequences on people's lives. As such, putting a muzzle on Internet trolls and harrassment gets a from me.

Also speaking of trolls taking threats into meatspace, what was the background of the guy who shot up the pizza place that was meant to be hiding Clinton’s pedo ring in its non-existent basement?

Because a lot of people online ‘trolled’ about the place and fed into the conspiracy, then someone went and shot the place up.

edited 28th Nov '17 3:45:33 PM by Silasw

Given that whole thing started with Cernovich, an Internet troll and MRA I definitely think we can chalk that one up as another case of trolling gone violent.

Although I think people use the term "troll" too broadly. Even Zoe Quinn, the primary victim of the Gamergate controversy, makes a distinction between the kind of people who merely mock opinions they disagree with, and people who try to cause real harm to types of people the dont approve of (like uppity female journalists, for example). Both are found online.

Don't know if this specific case has been addressed in this thread yet, but here's another developing story about whether harassment and hate speech is protected.

Yuck.

Let it be protected speech, and in return, punching Nazi's will also become protected speech, fucking Nazi scum....

"The founder of a popular neo-Nazi website says a "troll storm" he encouraged against a Jewish woman in Montana should be considered protected speech and a lawsuit against him should be dismissed..."

"Free Speech or Harrassment?" the article goes on to ask. The website founder encouraged his readers to send her multiple emails, and most of the ones she received were racial slurs. So she sued him.

According to uslegal.com: "Harassment is governed by state laws, which vary by state, but is generally defined as a course of conduct which annoys, threatens, intimidates, alarms, or puts a person in fear of their safety." According to dictionary.law.com, harrassment is "the act of systematic and/or continued unwanted and annoying actions of one party or a group, including threats and demands." According to mymichigandefenselawyer.com (where I live) "Harassment: conduct directed toward a victim that includes, but is not limited to, repeated or continuing unconsented contact that would cause a reasonable individual to suffer emotional distress and that actually causes the victim to suffer emotional distress."

That seems pretty clear. I think you can tell someone what you think of their Jewish heritage 'once, and if they then tell you to shut up, you have to shut up, or you are harrassing them. Perhaps the only ambiguity involved is that so many people contributed to the harrassment. But that seems like "conspiracy to commit harrassment" which should be just as illegal.

So, a pretty strong case against it being protected speech, I would say.

edited 4th Dec '17 11:16:09 AM by DeMarquis

The Atlantic: The Two Clashing Meanings of 'Free Speech'. The thesis of this article is that the modern conception of free speech is kind of a melding togheter of two greek concepts: Parrhesia and Isegoria (both translated as "free speech"). The first means, roughly "say whatever you want, no matter how much it may hurt" while the latter is closer to "everyone should have a voice in politics". The article guesses that those who think hate speech is free speech adopt the first understanding, while people who disagree adopt the latter.

I love that kind of esoteric etymological work. It's quite enlightening.

And now I feel nostalgic for Discworld. This could have been a major theme in a book. Oh, wait...

edited 11th Dec '17 2:14:27 PM by megaeliz

New Mexico school shooter was an admin at Encyclopedia Dramatica and member of Kiwi Farms.

I figured this was somewhat relevant to the topic, so I posted it here. If I should move it let me know.

I've heard of Encyclopedia Dramatica, but what's Kiwi Farms?

Kiwi Farms is a forum whose... sole claim to fame is engaging in harassment and doxing of people that seem eccentric to them.

Actually the site discourages active harassment. All they do is document other people's eccentricities and laugh at them.

If you've ever seen people at school laughing at special ed kids, this is the online equivalent. Now that's still bad, but it is not a harassment website. At all.

edited 15th Dec '17 10:22:07 AM by ThePest179

As I learned from a recent spelunking expedition on that site, mostly jackasses.

If you want to see someone you dislike torn apart it’s fun for like 5 minutes before you realise it’s basically the same people on /pol/. I voted for Donald for the lulz is not an uncommon sentiment there.

How does it compare to Something Awful?

I would say that they are similar, although people from KF tend not to troll and mock people off the site. They keep it contained there.

edited 15th Dec '17 11:31:24 AM by ThePest179

They're affiliated with a certain hashtag and they've outright spread lies about people. I went on there once and saw them repeating this outright lie about online critic Dan Olson being a pedophile (a lie made up after he busted 8chan for having child porn). They're absolute scum.