TVTropes Now available in the app store!
Open

Follow TV Tropes

Following

Trolling, Free Speech and the Law

Go To

RadicalTaoist scratching at .8, just hopin' from the #GUniverse Since: Jan, 2001
scratching at .8, just hopin'
#126: Mar 31st 2012 at 10:29:08 PM

I'd reluctantly say "yes" on the grounds that punishing them would open up doors for punishing others with unpopular views.
This. They're con artists hoping to provoke lawsuits; that's how they make their money.

Share it so that people can get into this conversation, 'cause we're not the only ones who think like this.
betaalpha betaalpha from England Since: Jan, 2001
betaalpha
#127: Apr 1st 2012 at 1:11:38 AM

Serious-ish-ly pondering the effectiveness of an 'allow one punch rule' to deal with people like the WBC, I conclude that it wouldn't actually work. I think they'd take the punches with pride and go on about how Jesus was beaten for his convictions. Maybe get the little children (who obviously won't be attacked) to cry as their mummies and daddies are hit to get some sympathy coverage - "You're not hurting me, you're hurting my children." And if anyone accidentally goes too far, it's a litigation bonanza.

I think most groups that act like dickheads do so from a position of power or invulnerability- lads spoiling for a fight, queen bitches at school with a bigger group than you, wrinkly old racists who could freely employ the Wounded Gazelle Gambit if you hit them to make you the villain, gankers in MM Os who are ten levels higher than you and part of a large, aggressive troll group that gets its giggles and a profit from ambushing revenge attacks. Against those groups you need the Law, the game mods or some good self-control.

[down] I sometimes fear this real-life troll group will gets its own version in the UK. Thankfully they haven't spread even in the US.

edited 1st Apr '12 1:58:40 AM by betaalpha

whaleofyournightmare Decemberist from contemplation Since: Jul, 2011
Decemberist
#128: Apr 1st 2012 at 1:25:55 AM

those WBC "characters" (most polite word I can use for them) who protest funeral - should that be protected under free speech, do you guys think?

Fred and his daughter Shirley are banned from entering the United Kingdom.

"Both these individuals have engaged in unacceptable behaviour by inciting hatred against a number of communities.

"We will continue to stop those who want to spread extremism, hatred and violent messages in our communities from coming to our country.

"The exclusions policy is targeted at all those who seek to stir up tension and provoke others to violence regardless of their origins and beliefs."

Dutch Lesbian
MarkVonLewis Since: Jun, 2010
#129: Apr 1st 2012 at 12:03:53 PM

beta: true enough, best way to take down the WBC would be to successfully file harassment charges or a lawsuit suing for mental anguish.

IraTheSquire Since: Apr, 2010
#130: Apr 1st 2012 at 4:36:10 PM

What's actually so special about, say, racism? Why is a (white) person not allowed to dislike people based on their race? As long as he isn't harrassing them or inciting violence against them and so on, why should it be illegal? I can hate anyone I like as much as I like based on almost any reason, but if race is the reason it's suddenly intolerable and I must be imprisoned or fined. You could say race is different because it's not something a person can choose, but I don't see why that's enough to make a legal difference (and saying it's acceptable to hate someone based on something they can choose is pretty strange).

I find it strange that it is somehow a "right" for people to hate each other based on arbitrary reasons, especially for reasons that not only the said person can do nothing about, but also has no basis apart from history and traditions.

As someone who people might classify as "Asian" I don't feel offended. I feel threatened, that somebody is going to hate me just because what I look like.

edited 1st Apr '12 4:49:22 PM by IraTheSquire

MarkVonLewis Since: Jun, 2010
#131: Apr 1st 2012 at 4:49:58 PM

It's more for the hypocrisy that it's okay for Group A to hate and bash Group B, but if Group B says anything bad about Group A they get shunned.

IraTheSquire Since: Apr, 2010
#132: Apr 1st 2012 at 5:09:08 PM

I know. I've seen some people who are supposed to be my "fellow" people (ie, people who are from Hong Kong) who disliked the mainland Chinese people for various reasons and it is just as disturbing. My sister and I are trying hard to talk my parents out of their racial prejudice against Indians and whites and whatnot as well (their prejudice against whites aren't as great though).

It's just that the idea that it is a "right" to "hate people" based on the colour of their skin and appearance is extremely disturbing. "Hate" is pretty strong, and to those who are hated it practically means "I want to exterminate you on sight".

joeyjojo Happy New Year! from South Sydney: go the bunnies! Since: Jan, 2001
Happy New Year!
#133: Apr 1st 2012 at 5:15:34 PM

Personally I'm just bothered by the precedent that it should be socially acceptable for the state to lock someone up for what is ultimately expressing is politically unsavoury views.

As Noam Chomsky said, If we don't believe in freedom of expression for people we despise, we don't believe in it at all.

hashtagsarestupid
IraTheSquire Since: Apr, 2010
#134: Apr 1st 2012 at 5:24:10 PM

As I said, people expressing their hatred towards a certain group of people based on their colour and other things that they cannot change is greatly disturbing and outright threatening to those people. Calling that just "politically unsavoury" is like saying that threatening somebody with violence is "politically unsavoury". Saying that it is "offensive" is a great Understatement and I think that word has been abused rather too much anyway.

Edit: And I'm not talking about random "racist" jokes that are basically just make fun of certain aspects of other people's culture, either (I make jokes about me being a "Chinaman" sometimes). Just the straight, direct statements like "Those Chinks are stupid and morons and they should be out of our country/killed."

edited 1st Apr '12 5:32:01 PM by IraTheSquire

joeyjojo Happy New Year! from South Sydney: go the bunnies! Since: Jan, 2001
Happy New Year!
#135: Apr 1st 2012 at 5:44:22 PM

Incidence of violence is a crime and rightfully so. People shouldn't have to live in fear of abuse.

But I can't say this is what happen in the UK. liam stacey's tweets were hardly political, but the reasons for his arrested were. The public were praying Fabrice Muamba and this guy was insulting him. The courts didn't justify their sentence on the grounds of public safety, or threatening behaviour, or personal harassment of Muamba. It was making people feel bad.

edited 1st Apr '12 5:45:01 PM by joeyjojo

hashtagsarestupid
Vellup I have balls. from America Since: Mar, 2011 Relationship Status: The Skitty to my Wailord
I have balls.
#136: Apr 1st 2012 at 6:25:10 PM

Looking at the OP, that incidence of trolling was pretty blatant—no different really than pissing on peoples' gravestones, and I'd certainly endorse arresting offenders for that. It's more or less the same reason why the police can arrest naked people.

Going off that line of thought, I guess you could argue for criminalizing racism/trolling if you try equate it to that same sort of "disruption of the peace," but quite honestly, the line between what would make hate speech tolerable and intolerable is incredibly ambiguous—and ambiguous laws are the most remarkably easy to abuse. Therefore, I think the extent to which hate propaganda is tolerated in the U.S. is about at the right level because the boundaries are reasonably clear.

They never travel alone.
whaleofyournightmare Decemberist from contemplation Since: Jul, 2011
Decemberist
#137: Apr 4th 2012 at 2:38:54 AM

Arizona Looks to Outlaw Internet Trolling

It is unlawful for any person, with intent to terrify, intimidate, threaten, harass, annoy or offend, to use ANY ELECTRONIC OR DIGITAL DEVICE and use any obscene, lewd or profane language or suggest any lewd or lascivious act, or threaten to inflict physical harm to the person or property of any person.

That is quite interesting because this is show how far the First amendment goes with regards to hateful and harmful speech online.

Dutch Lesbian
Euodiachloris Since: Oct, 2010
#138: Apr 4th 2012 at 2:54:42 AM

Wow: without being a little bit more specific, that's a lot of porn out the window...

Natasel Since: Nov, 2010
#139: Apr 4th 2012 at 3:01:59 AM

[up] No Porn!???!!! NOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO!!!!

0dd1 Just awesome like that from Nowhere Land Since: Sep, 2009
Just awesome like that
#140: Apr 4th 2012 at 5:51:45 AM

with intent to terrify, intimidate, threaten, harass, annoy or offend

I'm with it until it says "annoy." Every other verb here seems alright, but "annoy" can mean literally anything.

Insert witty and clever quip here. My page, as the database hates my handle.
Swish Long Live the King Since: Jan, 2001
Long Live the King
#141: Apr 4th 2012 at 5:54:12 AM

[up]Not "offend" as well?

As in: "I'm offended by your comment, don't be visiting Arizona anytime soon..."tongue

0dd1 Just awesome like that from Nowhere Land Since: Sep, 2009
Just awesome like that
#142: Apr 4th 2012 at 5:56:57 AM

Hey, I said "up to." tongue Yeah, "offend" is a vague one too, but I see "annoy" as the vaguest of them all.

Insert witty and clever quip here. My page, as the database hates my handle.
Fighteer Lost in Space from The Time Vortex (Time Abyss) Relationship Status: TV Tropes ruined my love life
Lost in Space
#143: Apr 4th 2012 at 6:58:34 AM

The key word there is "with intent to" — the law provides an out for unintentional offense given, but the question is how you prove it one way or the other.

"It's Occam's Shuriken! If the answer is elusive, never rule out ninjas!"
Discar Since: Jun, 2009
#144: Apr 4th 2012 at 7:27:58 AM

And once again, a good idea is poorly executed. Mind, I don't have any better ideas, but how would you prove intent? Poe's Law is pretty clear on how that will end.

Writing a post-post apocalypse LitRPG on RR. Also fanfic stuff.
0dd1 Just awesome like that from Nowhere Land Since: Sep, 2009
Just awesome like that
#145: Apr 4th 2012 at 7:31:51 AM

Another thing: The web is worldwide. This law is in a single state. Are only the people who live in Arizona under its jurisdiction, and, if so, how does that do much of anything if the harassers don't live there?

Insert witty and clever quip here. My page, as the database hates my handle.
Octo Prince of Dorne from Germany Since: Mar, 2011
Prince of Dorne
#146: Apr 4th 2012 at 7:34:49 AM

I'm no legal expert but I think it depends. If it's single users, then the guy who did it must have been in Arizona, no matter where the server is. OTOH, if they want to shut down an entire forum over it, the server better be in Arizona, no matter where the clients are.

Of course, some entities (the USA as a whole is infamous for that) try to push their jurisdiction way beyond any reasonable limits, so who knows...

Unbent, Unbowed, Unbroken. Unrelated ME1 Fanfic
Discar Since: Jun, 2009
#147: Apr 6th 2012 at 12:57:37 PM

Given the current problem we're having with trolls (see here), I'm beginning to think we need more laws like this. Emphasis on like; the one this thread was started in response to still needs work. But some random jackass shouldn't be able to bring financial ruin on a site by complaining to the ad servers until someone does what they say.

edited 6th Apr '12 12:58:01 PM by Discar

Writing a post-post apocalypse LitRPG on RR. Also fanfic stuff.
setnakhte That's terrifying. from inside your closet Since: Nov, 2010
That's terrifying.
#148: Apr 6th 2012 at 1:48:00 PM

[up]I haven't seen much problem with trolling here...

"Roll for whores."
inane242 Anwalt der Verdammten from A B-Movie Bildungsroman Since: Nov, 2010
Anwalt der Verdammten
#149: Apr 6th 2012 at 1:48:56 PM

It's not really a troll, someone saw content they had a problem with and reported it.

edited 6th Apr '12 1:49:02 PM by inane242

The 5 geek social fallacies. Know them well.
joeyjojo Happy New Year! from South Sydney: go the bunnies! Since: Jan, 2001
Happy New Year!
#150: Apr 6th 2012 at 2:51:36 PM

that''s not trolling, that's.... being creepy?

edited 6th Apr '12 2:51:47 PM by joeyjojo

hashtagsarestupid

Total posts: 2,517
Top